Aubrey J. El v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Gina Raimondo, Secretary

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1431
AUBREY J. EL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Gina Raimondo, Secretary,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cv-00190-RGD-DEM)
Submitted: November 23, 2021 Decided: November 29, 2021
Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aubrey J. El, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Aubrey J. El appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to amend his
amended complaint and denying his third motion for a preliminary injunction. 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). “A denial of a motion to amend a complaint is
not a final order, nor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.” Bridges v. Dep’t
of Md. State Police, 441 F.3d 197, 206 (4th Cir. 2006). We therefore dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction El’s appeal to the extent that he appeals the denial of his motion to amend the
amended complaint.
As for El’s appeal of the denial of his third motion for a preliminary injunction, we
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC
v. W. Pocahontas Props. Ltd. P’ship, 918 F.3d 353, 366 (4th Cir. 2019) (providing
preliminary injunction standards). We therefore affirm the district court’s order denying
El’s third motion for a preliminary injunction. El v. United States Dep’t of Com., No. 2:18-
cv-00190-RGD-DEM (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2021). 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 2 of 2 --