NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FULL -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a1104n.06
No. 11-6128
UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T
BU STER CHANDL ER, J R., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. COOKI E CREW S, W arde n; WI L L IAM PAL MER, Director

of Ge nera l Operations Unit C; MEL ODY SMI TH, Dorm 9 Unit Manag er; JOHN DOES; J ANE DO ES, Def endants-A

ppellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

Be fore : MARTI

N and WHI TE, Circuit J udg es; ECONOMUS, District J udg e. *

PER CURIAM. Buster Chandler, J r., a pro se Kentucky prisoner, appea ls the district court’s interlocutory

order denying his motion for a preliminary

injunction. Chandler soug ht injunctive relief alleg ing that the defendants’ e nforc ement of Corr ections Policy and Procedur e (CPP) 17.1(B ), which limit s the amount of leg al materia l in an inmate’s living

are a to two cubic fee t, violates his constitutional rig hts. After its initial scre ening of Chandler’ s complaint, the district court a llowed some of Chandle r’s c laims to procee d. Chandler moved fo r a t empora ry restra ining order, asserting that corr ectional officer s told him that he had too muc h leg al materia l in his cell in violation of CPP 17.1(B ) and direc ted him to mail his leg al materia l within forty -five day s. Otherw ise, Chandler claimed, the defe ndants would

The Honora

ble Peter C. Economus, United States Senior District J udg e for the Norther n * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation.No. 11-6128 - 2 - force him to throw awa

y his leg al materia l, which he needs to file a motion for a new trial. On J une 21, 2011, the district court denied Chandler’ s motion for a temporar y restra ining order , which the cour t construed a s also seekingpreliminary injunctive relief

. Chandler then filed a motion for an emer g ency protec tive order in which he asser ted that the deputy war den g ave him a forty -five- day ex tension to mail home his trial tapes, or have them destroyed. He reque sted a prote ctive orde r to preve nt the defe ndants from for cinghim to mail hi s trial tapes. In their re sponse, the defe ndants asser ted that Chandler c halleng ed the e nforc ement of Interna l Policy and Procedur e (I PP) 21-00-02, which addre sses inmate rete ntion and use of audio or

v i d eotape court transcripts. I PP 21-00-02 provides that audio and videotape court transcr ipts are stored for inmate use only in the prison library

and that the inmate ha s forty -five da y s to complete revie w of the court transcr ipt unless a written ex t ensi on is g rante d. On September 12, 2011, the district court denie d Chandler’ s motion. Chandler filed a ti mely notice of appeal from the district court’s order denying his motion for pr eliminary

injunctive relief

with respec t to his trial tapes. While Chandler attaches tha t order
to his brief, his brief does not mention his trial tapes or I PP 21-00-02. Instead, Chandler argues that the district c ourt abused its discretion in denying him an injunction to preve nt the defe ndants from forc ing him to throw awa y his leg al m at eria l, appar ently challeng ing the district court’s J une 21, 2011, order

. We lack jurisdiction over Chandler’ s attempted appea l of the district court’s J une 21, 2011, order

. Fe dera l Rule of Appellate Procedur e 3(c) (1)( B) require s a notice of appea l to “designate the judgme nt, order , or part there of being appeale d.” Whil e courts should liberally construe Rule 3’s require ments, the Rule’s “dictate s are jurisdictional in nature , and their satisfac tion is a prer equisite
to appellate revie w.” Smith v. Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992). Acc ording ly , we have “jurisdiction only over the are as of a judgme nt specifie d in the notice of appea l as being appea led.” JGR, Inc. v. Thomasville Furniture Indus., Inc ., 550 F.3d 529, 532 (6th Cir. 2008). Chandler’ s notice of appea lNo. 11-6128 - 3 - desig nated only “this court’s order enter [ed] on 9-9-11 [si c].” Be cause Chandler failed to desig nate the J une 21, 2011, orde r in his notice of a ppeal, we lack jurisdiction to revie w that orde r. Chandler’ s brief does not mention his trial tapes or I PP 21-00-02, which wer e the subject of
t h e d i s trict court’s September 12, 2011, order

. I ssues adver ted to “in a perf

unctory manner , unaccompanied by some eff ort at develope d argumentation,” are waived. Langley v. DaimlerChrysler Corp ., 502 F.3d 475, 483 (6th Cir. 2007) (interna l q u o t ation marks and citation omitted). By failing to addre ss the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respe ct to his trial tapes, Chandler has abandone d his a ppeal reg arding the district court’s order

. See Hills

v. Kentucky , 457 F.3d 583, 588 (6th Cir. 2006); Thaddeus-X v. Blatter , 175 F.3d 378, 403 n.18 (6th Cir. 1999) (en ba

nc). The distri ct court’s interlocutory order deny ing Chandler’ s motion for preliminary injunctive relief is affirme d.