Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07393/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07393-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael F. Easley
Appellee
Lexis Publishing
Appellee
Nancy S. Nash
Appellee
State of North Carolina
Appellee
Andre Lamar Woody
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7393

ANDRE LAMAR WOODY, on behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL F. EASLEY; LEXIS PUBLISHING;

NANCY S. NASH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III,

District Judge. (2:07-cv-00032-D)

Submitted: March 20, 2008 Decided: April 17, 2008

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Andre Lamar Woody, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7393 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/17/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
*

We deny Woody’s motion for a writ of mandamus as moot. In

that motion, Woody requested this court to compel the district

court to rule on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend

the judgment dismissing Woody’s underlying complaint. The district

court subsequently denied Woody’s Rule 59(e) motion.

2

PER CURIAM:

Andre Woody, a North Carolina inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2000) complaint alleging the Appellees conspired to publish

criminal procedure manuals containing incorrect elements of the

state’s habitual felon statute. The district court denied Woody’s

motion for a temporary restraining order; in the same order, the

district court noted Woody failed to demonstrate a likelihood of

irreparable harm or any of the other requirements necessary to

obtain preliminary injunctive relief. Woody timely appealed.

To the extent Woody seeks to appeal the district court’s

denial of a temporary restraining order, that denial is not

appealable. See Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t

Employees, 473 U.S. 1301, 1303-04 (1985); Drudge v. McKernon, 482

F.2d 1375, 1376 (4th Cir. 1973). 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

Appeal: 07-7393 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/17/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

 DISMISSED IN PART;

 AFFIRMED IN PART

Appeal: 07-7393 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/17/2008 Pg: 3 of 3