Kenneth Awe v. Dr. Miller

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7880
KENNETH VALENTINE AWE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DR. MILLER, ROSP M.D.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
HAROLD CLARKE, VDOC Director; RANDLE MATHENA, ROSP Warden,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:13-cv-00143-JLK-RSB)
Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 28, 2014
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth V. Awe, Appellant Pro Se. William Francis Demarest, III,
Mary Moffett Hutcheson Priddy, GOODMAN, ALLEN & FILETTI, Glen
Allen, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth V. Awe appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion seeking a preliminary injunction to require
the Virginia Department of Corrections to authorize photocopying
loans. 1 On appeal, Awe correctly notes that the district court
appears to have misconstrued his request as one for free
photocopies, rather than authorization for additional
photocopying loans on his inmate trust account. He also
correctly notes that, insofar as he may seek to copy medical
records, such records could not be effectively copied by hand,
as suggested by the court. Nevertheless, we conclude that the
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Awe’s motion, as
the motion failed to make any showing of the requirements for
preliminary injunctive relief. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (required showing for
preliminary injunction); Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649
F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011) (standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 2 We dispense
1
Although interlocutory, this order is immediately
appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012).
2
While Awe’s appellate briefs address the merits of his
underlying deliberate indifference claim, that issue is not
properly before us, as the district court has not yet issued a
ruling on the claim, and its merits are not relevant to the
order appealed.
2
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
3