UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6358
DAVID HALL CRUM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; JOHN
ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States; BUREAU OF PRISONS, The Director;
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director of the Bureau of
Prisons,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (5:04-cv-0983)
Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 30, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
David Hall Crum, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Hall Crum appeals from the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying his
motion for a preliminary injunction and from the magistrate judge’s
order consolidating his two 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petitions.
Because Crum fails to satisfy the four-factor balancing test
established by this court in Blackwelder Furniture Co. of
Statesville, Inc. v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1977),
we affirm the district court’s order denying the motion for a
preliminary injunction. Turning to Crum’s appeal of the order
consolidating his two § 2241 petitions, 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 consolidation order Crum seeks to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
collateral order. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion
for a preliminary injunction and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
the appeal of the consolidation order. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND
DISMISSED IN PART
- 2 -