Todd Short v. Michael Boyd

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 4, 2024
• Docket: 24-1150
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1150 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1150

TODD W. SHORT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL BOYD, FBI Special Agent, in his individual capacity; JOHN DOES, FBI Special Agents 1-6, in their individual capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cv-00207-MR-WCM)

Submitted: May 30, 2024 Decided: June 4, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd W. Short, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1150 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Todd W. Short seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a

temporary restraining order. 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).

Absent exceptional circumstances, the denial of a motion for a temporary restraining order

is considered interlocutory and is not appealable. See Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Am. Fed’n of

Gov’t Emps., 473 U.S. 1301, 1303-04 (1985). Exceptional circumstances exist where the

denial effectively decides the merits of the case. See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d

1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976). Upon a review of the record, we conclude that no such

exceptional circumstances are present in this case.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, we deny

Short’s motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense and we deny as moot

his motion to expedite. 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