Greene v. Angelone

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7313 JOSEPH DONALD LEE GREENE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director; RUFUS J. FLEMING, Regional Director; H. R. POWELL, Warden; POPE GRIZZARD Operations Officer; J. H. BONEY, Mailroom Supervisor; JANE DOE ASHBURN, c/o Mailroom Clerk, Defendants - Appellees. No. 02-7856 JOSEPH DONALD LEE GREENE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director; RUFUS J. FLEMING, Regional Director; H. R. POWELL, Warden; POPE GRIZZARD, Operations Officer; J. H. RONEY, Mailroom Supervisor; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ASHBURN, Mailroom Clerk, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-02-656-2, CA-02-611-2) Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 14, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. No. 02-7313 affirmed as modified and No. 02-7856 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Donald Lee Greene, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: In No. 02-7313, Greene appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion. We agree Greene’s complaint did not state a claim for the reasons stated by the district court. Under the circumstances of this case, however, we believe the district court should have dismissed Greene’s complaint without prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order for the reasons stated by the district court with the modification that the dismissal is without prejudice. In No. 02-7856, Greene seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions for appointment of counsel and to recuse the district court judge. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Greene seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.* * To the extent Greene may be attempting to appeal the district court’s order concerning his motion for a preliminary injunction, Greene did not timely appeal that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a); Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). 3 Accordingly, in No. 02-7313 we affirm as modified to reflect that the dismissal was without prejudice. We deny Greene’s motion for abeyance. In No. 02-7856, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it is interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. No. 02-7313 - AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED No. 02-7856 - DISMISSED 4