Woody v. State of NC, No. 07-7393 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7393 ANDRE LAMAR WOODY, similarly situated, on behalf of himself and all others Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL F. EASLEY; LEXIS PUBLISHING; NANCY S. NASH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00032-D) Submitted: March 20, 2008 Decided: April 17, 2008 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Lamar Woody, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andre Woody, a North Carolina inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint alleging the Appellees conspired to publish criminal procedure manuals containing incorrect elements of the state s habitual felon statute. The district court denied Woody s motion for a temporary restraining order; in the same order, the district court noted Woody failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm or any of the other requirements necessary to obtain preliminary injunctive relief. Woody timely appealed. To the extent Woody seeks to appeal the district court s denial of appealable. a temporary restraining order, that denial is not See Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Am. Fed n of Gov t Employees, 473 U.S. 1301, 1303-04 (1985); Drudge v. McKernon, 482 F.2d 1375, 1376 (4th Cir. 1973). To the extent the district court denied a preliminary injunction, which is an appealable order, we conclude that denial was not an abuse of discretion. See Cienna Corp. v. Jarrard, 203 F.3d 312, 322 (4th Cir. 2000).* We dispense with oral argument because the * facts and legal contentions are We deny Woody s motion for a writ of mandamus as moot. In that motion, Woody requested this court to compel the district court to rule on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing Woody s underlying complaint. The district court subsequently denied Woody s Rule 59(e) motion. 2 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.