Freeman v. White

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6003 JOHN A. FREEMAN, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. A. WHITE, Officer; CAPTAIN BARKSDALE; UN- KNOWN SERGEANT; UNKNOWN BOND COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-920) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. John A. Freeman, II, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motions for a temporary restraining order, appointment of counsel, and an injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) civil action. We dismiss the appeal as to the denial of the temporary restraining order and for the appointment of counsel because the district court's order as to those motions is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,1 and certain inter- locutory and collateral orders.2 Those parts of the order here appealed are neither final nor appealable as interlocutory or collateral. The district court's denial of an injunction is immediately appealable 3 and the finding of frivolousness is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.4 We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Freeman v. White, No. CA-95-920 (W.D. Va. Dec. 6, 1995). Additionally, we deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 1 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). 2 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 3 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (1988). 4 Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ____, 63 U.S.L.W. 3690 (U.S. Mar. 20, 1995) (No. 94- 7733). 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART 3