Blaney v. Driscoll

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 13, 2000
• Docket: 00-6440
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY S. BLANEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 00-6440

G. F. DRISCOLL, Law Librarian, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-98-1449-AM)

Submitted: September 29, 2000

Decided: October 13, 2000

Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jeffrey S. Blaney, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville, Vir- ginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey S. Blaney appeals from the district court's decisions deny- ing injunctive relief, refusing to appoint counsel, denying leave to amend, and entering partial summary judgment in favor of Appellee G.F. Driscoll, the law librarian at Virginia Beach City Jail. We grant Blaney's motion to amend his notice of appeal, which cures one juris- dictional defect affecting his claims. Nevertheless, we dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction.

After filing this 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) action, Blaney was transferred from Virginia Beach to an Illinois prison; thus, his requests for injunctions against Driscoll are moot, see Wein- stein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 148-49 (1975) (per curiam), as is his motion for an injunction barring his transfer to Illinois, see Railway Labor Executives Ass'n v. Chesapeake W. Ry., 915 F.2d 116, 118-19 (4th Cir. 1990). As for the district court's procedural rulings, this Court ordinarily may not entertain interlocutory appeals from the refusal to appoint counsel, see Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 964 (4th Cir. 1987), or the denial of leave to amend, see Kahn v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 91 F.3d 385, 388 (2d Cir. 1996); Kartell v. Blue Shield, 687 F.2d 543, 551 (1st Cir. 1982). Finally, the order granting partial summary judgment is not properly before the Court because the district court has not certified this partial judgment for immediate appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

For these reasons, we dismiss Blaney's appeal for lack of jurisdic- tion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con- tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED