UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6240
STEPHEN MARK HAUSE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DR. MILES, LCDC Physician; MAJOR JONES, LCDC Supt; THE
LEXINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, in their individual
and/or official capacities; CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge.
(9:13-cv-01271-RMG-BM)
Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 15, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Mark Hause, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Victor Gende, John
Earle Tyler, SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA, Columbia, South
Carolina; Justin Tyler Bagwell, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Mark Hause appeals from the magistrate judge’s
text orders denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and
for the appointment of an expert. He also moves for injunctive
relief on appeal. His civil proceeding is still pending in
district court. We dismiss.
An order denying a preliminary injunction is an
immediately appealable interlocutory order. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(a)(1) (2012). However, during the pendency of this
appeal, Hause was released from custody. Claims for injunctive
relief become moot when a prisoner is no longer subjected to the
conditions about which he complains. Williams v. Griffin, 952
F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991). Therefore, Hause’s appeal of the
district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief is
moot.
As to Hause’s appeal of the magistrate judge’s denial
of his motion for an expert, we may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545 (1949). “[A]n order is final if it ends the
litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do
but execute the judgment.” Penn-Am. Ins. Co. v. Mapp, 521 F.3d
290, 294 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal citations and quotations
2
omitted). This litigation remains pending in the district
court. Thus, the district court’s order denying the motion for
an expert is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. See id. at 294-95.
Accordingly, this portion of the appeal is dismissed as
interlocutory.
Based on the foregoing, we dismiss Hause’s appeal and
deny his motion for injunctive relief pending appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
3