
    Lakeith AMIR-SHARIF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS; Lupe Valdez, Dallas County Sheriff; Parkland Memorial Hospital, Board of Directors; Susan Phillips, Vice President, Parkland Memorial Hospital/Jail Health Care Coordinator; Dr. Steven Bowers, Jail Medical Director; University of Texas Medical Branch, Jail Health Care Provider; Kenneth Mayfield, Dallas Commissioner; Edgar L. McMillian, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 06-10563
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 9, 2007.
    Lakeith Amir-Sharif, Dallas, TX, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Lakeith Amir-Sharif filed the instant § 1983 suit to seek redress for acts that occurred while he was incarcerated. Amir-Sharif filed motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction requesting that the district court order the defendants to cease tampering with his mail, permit him to receive publications in the mail, and permit him to access the law library. The district court denied the motions and denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this interlocutory appeal. Amir-Sharif now moves this court for authorization to proceed IFP on appeal. He also requests appointed counsel.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Amir-Sharif s challenge to the denial of his requests for a TRO. See Faulder v. Johnson, 178 F.3d 741, 742 (5th Cir.1999). Consequently, Amir-Sharifs appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION to the extent that he appeals the district court’s denial of his requests for a TRO.

Amir-Sharif s requests for a preliminary injunction have been mooted by his release from prison. See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir.2001). This appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT to the extent that Amir-Sharif appeals the district court’s denial of his requests for a preliminary injunction. All outstanding motions are DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     