Court Opinion

ID: 9382285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 21:00:38.452895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.256516
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6105      Doc: 8         Filed: 03/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6105

        CHARLIE L. HARDIN,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        D. EVERETT, Superintendent; CAPTAIN TURLEY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
        MULLEN; SERGEANT PIERCE; MS. JORDAN; CAPTAIN SLEDGE; UNIT
        MANAGER OVERTON; CASE MANAGER BAZZLE; BRANDESHAWN HARRIS;
        LIEUTENANT SCOTT; LIEUTENANT WICHARD; LIEUTENANT HILL; CAPTAIN
        DELAND; SERGEANT BARFIELD; CASE MANAGER MOORE; JAMES PIERCE,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:22-ct-03255-BO-RJ)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 24, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Charlie L. Hardin, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6105       Doc: 8          Filed: 03/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Charlie L. Hardin has noted an appeal from the district court’s order reviewing his

        42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, allowing his claims under the

        First and Eighth Amendments against ten Defendants to proceed, dismissing his remaining

        claims and the remaining Defendants, denying his motion to appoint counsel, and denying

        his motion for injunctive relief.

               This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

        certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

        Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). The order Hardin

        seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *

        Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

                                                                                         DISMISSED

               *
                  An order denying a preliminary injunction is an immediately appealable
        interlocutory order. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). However, we lack jurisdiction to review the
        denial of a temporary restraining order. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps.,
        473 U.S. 1301, 1303-05 (1985); Drudge v. McKernon, 482 F.2d 1375, 1376 (4th Cir. 1973)
        (per curiam). Because a “court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the
        adverse party,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1), and Hardin did not provide notice of his motion
        to Defendants, we construe the motion to be requesting a temporary restraining order.

                                                      2