David Babb v. David Isom

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 1, 2024
• Docket: 24-1456
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1456 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1456

DAVID ANTHONY BABB,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DAVID ISOM, General Manager for Safe Harbor; RUDY SOCHA, CEO, Wounded Nature Working Veterans; JOHN J. TECKLENBURG, Retired; MIKE MERRILL, City Police Officer; S.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON; WOUNDED NATURE- WORKING VETERANS 501 C(3), Registered Agent: Rudy Socha; SARAH REED, DHEC Agent, South Carolina Coastal Management Council,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:23-cv-03218-RMG)

Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Anthony Babb, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1456 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

David Anthony Babb seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion

for reconsideration of the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and denying Babb’s ex parte motions for a temporary restraining order

(TRO). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen

v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). We lack jurisdiction to

review the denial of a TRO, absent exceptional circumstances not present here. ∗ Off. of

Pers. Mgmt. v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., 473 U.S. 1301, 1303-05 (1985) (Burger, C.J., in

chambers); Drudge v. McKernon, 482 F.2d 1375, 1376 (4th Cir. 1973) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

∗ An order denying a preliminary injunction is an immediately appealable interlocutory order. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). But, because a “court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1), we construe Babb’s ex parte motions as seeking only a TRO.