IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20666
MARCUS WAYNE COOPER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CV-1288
--------------------
March 16, 2001
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marcus Wayne Cooper, Texas prisoner # 506016, has filed an
appeal of the district court’s order denying various motions
filed in this federal habeas proceeding, including Cooper’s
motion for a summary judgment, his motion for appointment of
counsel, his motion for a preliminary injunction, and his motion
for authorization to take depositions and to conduct discovery.
This court does not have jurisdiction to review the district
court’s denial of Cooper’s motion for summary judgment because
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-20666
-2-
the decision was not final as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See
Sorey v. Kellett, 849 F.2d 960, 961 (5th Cir. 1988). The denial
of Cooper’s motion for appointment of counsel is not reviewable
because the district court had not rendered a final decision on
Cooper’s habeas petition and because the order is not reviewable
under the collateral order doctrine. See Thomas v. Scott, 47
F.3d 713, 714 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court’s denial of
Cooper’s motion to take depositions and conduct discovery is not
reviewable because the motion was denied without prejudice and,
therefore, did not conclusively decide this issue. See id. at
715. Accordingly, the part of the appeal challenging the denial
of these motions is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The denial of Cooper’s motion for a preliminary injunction
is immediately appealable. See Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d
1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). However,
because Cooper does not address the district court’s denial of
this motion in his appellate brief, he has abandoned this issue
on appeal. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir.
1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1003 (2000).
APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.