UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6196
AARON HOLSEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HORNBECKER, individually and as Facility Ad-
ministrator; CHARNEY CAIN, individually and as
Supervisor of Classification Department; HILL,
individually and as a Classification Counsel-
or; RICHARD LANHAM, individually and as Com-
missioner of the Division of Corrections; EARL
BESHEARS, individually and as Warden; GEORGE
KALOROUMAKIS, individually and as Facility
Administrator; DIRECTOR OF CLASSIFICATION, in-
dividually also (Name Unknown) at Department
of Corrections Headquarters,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-97-2422-JFM)
Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 15, 1998
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Aaron Holsey, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
General, Wendy Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General, Balti-
more, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Holsey appeals from the district court’s order denying
his motion for a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary
injunction. Holsey sought transfer to a different correctional
facility as well as an order barring the use of a detainer to
impede his progression to a more favorable custody classification.
To the extent that Holsey appeals the denial of a temporary
restraining order, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise juris-
diction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and cer-
tain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337
U.S. 541, 546 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
To the extent that Holsey appeals the denial of injunctive
relief, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. Holsey v. Hornbecker, No. CA-97-
2422-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 16, 1998). 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
3