Opinion
No. 19-6796 No. 19-6824
10-17-2019
ROBERT LOUIS GARRETT, JR., a/k/a Chubby, a/k/a Chubb, a/k/a Tru, a/k/a Kweli, a/k/a Justice, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AULL; BECKETT, JR.; T. ESTERLINE; JAMES PARRISH, Defendants - Appellees.
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge; Paige Jones Gossett, Magistrate Judge. (0:18-cv-01418-CMC-PJG) Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., appeals the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and denying his motion to alter or amend; the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's order and allowing Garrett until June 25, 2019, to file any motion to amend or supplement his complaint; the magistrate judge's order dismissing as moot Garrett's motion to compel and for sanctions, motion to stay, two motions to supplement the motion to compel and for sanctions, and Defendants' motion for extension of time; and the magistrate judge's order denying Garrett's motions to appoint counsel. 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, 545-46 (1949). The denial of Garrett's motion for a preliminary injunction is an appealable interlocutory order. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the denial of the preliminary injunction or motion to reconsider. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Garrett v. Aull, No. 0:18-cv-01418-CMC-PJG (D.S.C. Apr. 12, 2019 & May 30, 2019). The remaining three orders are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART