Rodney Jones v. Alvin Keller, Jr., No. 13-6540 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6540 RODNEY MOUCELL JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ALVIN WILLIAM KELLER, JR., Secretary of the Department of Public Safety, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cv-00304-RJC) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Moucell Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rodney Moucell Jones seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motions for appointment of counsel and for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) proceedings. To the extent that Jones seeks to appeal the district court s denial of a temporary restraining order, the denial is not appealable on the circumstances of this case. See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029 30 (4th Cir. 1976). His appeal of the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel is likewise interlocutory. To the extent that he also sought a preliminary injunction, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court s denial of any such request was not an abuse of its discretion. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008); Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to the request for a temporary restraining order and appointment of counsel, and otherwise affirm the district court s judgment. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 2

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.