Case Name: Gregory Edward GUNTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Douglas DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-09
Citations: 75 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 03-40467
Parties: Gregory Edward GUNTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Douglas DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 75
Pages: 235–236

Head Matter:
Gregory Edward GUNTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Douglas DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-40467.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 9, 2003.
Gregory Edward Gunter, pro se, Beaumont, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Maria Irene Delgadillo, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Gregory Edward Gunter, Texas prisoner #589198, has moved for a certifícate of appealability ("COA") in order to appeal the district court's interlocutory order denying his applications for injunctions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Incorporated in Gunter's COA brief is a motion seeking injunctive relief from this court.
The district court's order denying Gunter's application for a temporary restraining order is not appealable. Matter of Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir.1990). Gunter has failed to establish in the district court that there existed a substantial threat of irreparable harm, which is required to obtain an injunction. See Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir.1991). Accordingly, Gunter's COA application is DENIED, to the extent that one is required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A), see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000), and the district court's interlocutory order denying Gunter's application for a preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED. Gunter's motion in this court for a preliminary injunction is also DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.