UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7811
MICHAEL RANKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DENNIS ROWLAND; MICHAEL A. MUNNS; RICHARD T.
JONES; BOBBY MONTAGUE; EARNEST SUTTON; J. A.
REID; JOHN DOE, Maintenance Supervisor; JOHN
DOE, Health Authority; SHARON SNIDER; NURSE
CRAIG; JOHN DOE, Classification Officials,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (CA-05-621-FL-5)
Submitted: June 2, 2006 Decided: June 27, 2006
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Rankins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Rankins appealed the district court’s order that
denied his motions for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.1 Rankins
alleged a poor ventilation system in the unit in which he was
housed at Butner Correctional Facility (“Butner”) caused him bodily
harm, that he was denied medical treatment for his symptoms, and
that he was denied outdoor recreation. The district court directed
Rankins to particularize his claims within twenty days and denied
his requests for injunctive relief and a temporary restraining
order. We dismiss the appeal.
Rankins has been transferred from Butner to Central
Prison in Raleigh, North Carolina, so his requests for a temporary
restraining order and injunctive relief are now moot, and we
dismiss his appeal as to the denial of injunctive relief for that
reason.2 To the extent that Rankins appeals the disposition of his
§ 1983 claims, his appeal is interlocutory because the district
court’s order is not a final disposition of those claims. We
1
We grant Rankins’ motion to reconsider and grant him leave to
proceed under the PLRA in this appeal. Even though he has
accumulated three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), construing
his allegations as true, we conclude he made a colorable showing he
was in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” We express no
opinion, however, as to the merits of his claims. We deny Rankins’
motion to reconsider our denial of his request for a stay.
2
The denial of a temporary restraining order is generally not
appealable. See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30
(4th Cir. 1976).
- 2 -
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
of the parties are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -