Williams v. State of Maryland ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7370
ROBERT WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; WARDEN ROWLEY; MS. WALKER, Officer;
SERGEANT JOHNSON; SERGEANT WARNER; SERGEANT CROSS; SERGEANT
THOMAS; J. FRANTZ, Officer, in their official capacity,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
OFFICER FREZEL,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(8:09-cv-00879-DKC)
Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 16, 2009
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber,
Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Williams, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and his
motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction. In denying the temporary restraining order, the
district court noted that Williams failed to demonstrate a
likelihood of irreparable harm or any of the other requirements
necessary to obtain preliminary injunctive relief. Williams
timely appealed.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 91 (2006), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541(1949). Williams’ appeal of the district court’s denial of
appointment of counsel and of a temporary restraining order, are
neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral
orders. To the extent the district court denied a preliminary
injunction, which is an appealable order, we conclude that
denial was not an abuse of discretion. See Cienna Corp. V.
Jarrard, 203 F.3d 312, 322 (4th Cir. 2000).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2