Jimmy Allen Roberts v. ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary of NCDPS, substituted for Barney Owens

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7416
JIMMY ALLEN ROBERTS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary of NCDPS, substituted for Barney Owens,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00058-MR)
Submitted: February 24, 2022 Decided: March 1, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Allen Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Allen Roberts, a North Carolina prisoner, appeals the district court’s order
(a) directing Roberts to supplement his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as to any potential
grounds for equitable tolling; and (b) denying Roberts’ request for preliminary injunctive
relief against the North Carolina Department of Public Safety as related to the alleged
deprivation of Roberts’ right of court access. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen
v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). That portion of the order
directing Roberts to supplement his § 2254 petition is neither a final order, given that the
§ 2254 proceeding remains pending, nor is it immediately appealable as an interlocutory
or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction.
We do, however, have jurisdiction to review the order as related to Roberts’ request
for preliminary injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). This court reviews the denial
of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Roe v. Dep’t of Def., 947 F.3d 207, 219
(4th Cir. 2020). In evaluating the district court’s decision, “we review factual findings for
clear error and assess legal conclusions de novo.” Fusaro v. Cogan, 930 F.3d 241, 248
(4th Cir. 2019). Upon review, we discern no error in the district court’s ruling that Roberts
failed to establish grounds for the injunctive relief he sought. We therefore affirm the
appealed-from order, in part, to the extent that it denied preliminary injunctive relief.
Roberts v. Hooks, No. 1:21-cv-00058-MR (W.D.N.C. Sept. 22, 2021).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --