Lawrence Crawford v. S.C. Attorney General

── Lawrence Crawford v. S.C. Attorney General ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: June 01, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-6598 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/01/2026 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6598 LAWRENCE L. CRAWFORD, a/k/a Johah Gabriel, a/k/a Jahjah T. Tishbite, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. S.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; S.C.D.C. GENERAL COUNSEL, With all of its members; BRYAN STIRLING, S.C.D.C. Director; S.C.D.C. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL; WARDEN JAMES; A.W. SMITH; A.W. MCDUFFY; MAJOR MEEKS; SGT. CROWLEY; NURSE MILLER; WARDEN STONEBREAKER; UNITED STATES CONGRESS, And all members contained therein; CATHOLIC ARCH DIOCESE AND POPE; MR. LAWRENZ, Director of the Well Path Center; WELL PATH CENTER; 194 MEMBER STATES OF THE UNITED NATIONS; COUNTY OF RICHLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA; COUNTY OF KERSHAW; COUNTY OF HORRY; ADAIR FORD BUROUGHS, Federal Attorney for the State of South Carolina, U.S. Attorney; UNITED STATES SENATE, And all members contained therein, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:24-cv-04660-BHH-MHC) Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 1, 2026 Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6598 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/01/2026 Pg: 2 of 4 Lawrence Crawford, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6598 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/01/2026 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: Lawrence Crawford seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (1) separating his complaint from three co-plaintiffs and (2) denying his motions for a preliminary injunction, appointment of counsel, recusal of the district court judge, recusal of the magistrate judge, appointment of a new magistrate judge, an extension of time, permission to intervene, consolidation of cases, complex case designation, reconsideration of the order separating his action from those of his co-plaintiffs, and various other forms of relief. * 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). The orders Crawford seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders, with the exception of that portion of the district court’s order denying injunctive relief. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, in part, for lack of jurisdiction. We do, however, have jurisdiction to review the portion of the order denying Crawford’s request for preliminary injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for an 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 * Crawford has also filed in this court motions to remand; to consolidate this appeal with docket numbers 25-6598, 25-6599, 25-6602; to vacate; for acceptance; for judicial notice; for a preliminary injunction; for a temporary restraining order; for sanctions; for a declaratory judgment; to