Audrel Watson, Jr. v. G. Bowle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999639227-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999674631-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01315-GBL-MSN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999684729]. Mailed to: Audrel Watson, Jr.. [15-7075]

Appeal: 15-7075

Doc: 22

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7075

AUDREL JACK WATSON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
G. BOWLES, Dr., Dentist; MS. MORELLE, Dental Assistant;
UNKNOWN NURSE, #1; UNKNOWN NURSE, #2; HAROLD CLARKE,
Director Virginia Dept. of Corrections; MS. GOODE, Medical
Administrator; MS. HIGHTOWER, Director of Nursing; WARDEN
WRIGHT, Warden-Lawrenceville Corrections Center,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01315-GBL-MSN)

Submitted:

October 20, 2015

Decided:

October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Audrel Jack Watson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7075

Doc: 22

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Audrel

Jack

Watson,

Jr.,

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s orders dismissing some of the defendants named in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint, denying his motions to appoint
counsel, to amend his complaint, and for discovery, and denying
his motion for a preliminary injunction.
This

court

may

exercise

jurisdiction

only

over

final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral

orders,

28

U.S.C.

§ 1292

(2012);

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546

(1949).

The

portions

of

the

district

court’s

orders

dismissing some of the named defendants and denying Watson’s
motions

to

appoint

counsel,

for

discovery,

and

to

amend

his

complaint are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory
or collateral orders.

Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of

Watson’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
However, the denial of injunctive relief may be immediately
appealed.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012).

Our review of the

record reveals no abuse of discretion by the district court in
denying Watson’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and we
affirm the denial of injunctive relief for the reasons stated by
the

court.

See

Watson

v.

Clarke,

No.

1:14-cv-01315-GBL-MSN

(E.D. Va. filed June 2, 2015; entered June 3, 2015).

2

Appeal: 15-7075

Doc: 22

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

We deny Watson’s motion, on appeal, to appoint counsel.
deny

Watson’s

unnecessary.

motion

for

a

certificate

of

appealability

We
as

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.

AFFIRMED IN PART
DISMISSED IN PART

3