Case Name: Daniele DEPAOLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. B. KING, Lieutenant; Hughes, Lieutenant; T. B. Smith, Sergeant; B. K. McCray, Sergeant; D. J. Davis, Officer; M. S. Byington, Officer; T. W. Hall, Officer; J. R. Ledford, Officer; John Short, Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-31
Citations: 691 F. App'x 97
Docket Number: No. 17-6096
Parties: Daniele DEPAOLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. B. KING, Lieutenant; Hughes, Lieutenant; T. B. Smith, Sergeant; B. K. McCray, Sergeant; D. J. Davis, Officer; M. S. Byington, Officer; T. W. Hall, Officer; J. R. Ledford, Officer; John Short, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 97–97

Head Matter:
Daniele DEPAOLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. B. KING, Lieutenant; Hughes, Lieutenant; T. B. Smith, Sergeant; B. K. McCray, Sergeant; D. J. Davis, Officer; M. S. Byington, Officer; T. W. Hall, Officer; J. R. Ledford, Officer; John Short, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-6096
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 25, 2017
Decided: May 31, 2017
Daniele Depaolis, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniele Depaolis seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motion for preliminary injunctive relief; denying his motion for reconsideration of the court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief; and denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Although the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction is an appealable interlocutory order, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(A)(1) (2012), we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Depaolis' transfer to another prison rendered his claim for injunctive relief moot. See Dewhurst v. Century. Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review). We therefore affirm the district court's orders denying Depaolis' motion for preliminary injunctive relief and denying his motion for reconsideration for the reasons stated by the district court. Depaolis v. King, No. 7:16-cv-00409-EKD-RSB (W.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2016 & Jan. 31, 2017).
With respect to the order denying De-paolis' motion for appointment of counsel, 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because this order is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order, we dismiss this portion of the appeal. 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