Audrel Watson, Jr. v. G. Bowles ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7075
AUDREL JACK WATSON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
G. BOWLES, Dr., Dentist; MS. MORELLE, Dental Assistant;
UNKNOWN NURSE, #1; UNKNOWN NURSE, #2; HAROLD CLARKE,
Director Virginia Dept. of Corrections; MS. GOODE, Medical
Administrator; MS. HIGHTOWER, Director of Nursing; WARDEN
WRIGHT, Warden-Lawrenceville Corrections Center,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01315-GBL-MSN)
Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Audrel Jack Watson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Audrel Jack Watson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders dismissing some of the defendants named in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint, denying his motions to appoint
counsel, to amend his complaint, and for discovery, and denying
his motion for a preliminary injunction.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-
46 (1949). The portions of the district court’s orders
dismissing some of the named defendants and denying Watson’s
motions to appoint counsel, for discovery, and to amend his
complaint are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory
or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of
Watson’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
However, the denial of injunctive relief may be immediately
appealed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012). Our review of the
record reveals no abuse of discretion by the district court in
denying Watson’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and we
affirm the denial of injunctive relief for the reasons stated by
the court. See Watson v. Clarke, No. 1:14-cv-01315-GBL-MSN
(E.D. Va. filed June 2, 2015; entered June 3, 2015).
2
We deny Watson’s motion, on appeal, to appoint counsel. We
deny Watson’s motion for a certificate of appealability as
unnecessary. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART
DISMISSED IN PART
3