Givonno Carter; Marvin H. Johnson; Malcolm Tharrington; Brian L. Martin, Jr., Plaintiffs, v. LASSITER RDU RDU (2019)

Eli Alvarez seeks to appeal the district court's interlocutory order in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. The district court conducted a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and held that Alvarez could proceed with his claim for injunctive relief based on his allegation that the Defendants deprived him of property without due process. The district court dismissed Alvarez's remaining claims for relief and denied his motion for preliminary injunctive relief, his first motion to amend, and his motion for the appointment of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the appeal.

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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Although an order denying a preliminary injunction is an immediately appealable interlocutory order that is reviewable for abuse of discretion, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012); WV Ass'n of Club Owners & Fraternal Servs., Inc. v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir. 2009), Alvarez does not challenge the district court's denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction in his informal brief. Accordingly, he has waived review of this issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting importance of Rule 34(b)).

The portion of the order that denied some, but not all, of Alvarez's § 1983 claims, denied his first motion to amend as moot, and denied his motion for appointment of counsel is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (“Ordinarily, a district court order is not ‘final’ until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.”). With respect to Alvarez's second motion to amend, the district court has yet to issue any order. Accordingly, we dismiss the claims raised in Alvarez's informal brief for lack of jurisdiction. 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

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.