Cathy Lanier v. Branch Banking & Trust Company ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-1441
    CATHY G. LANIER; RANDY D. LANIER,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    v.
    BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY; BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC;
    FLEMING & WHITT PA; MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES PA; DOES 1-10,
    inclusive,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.       Margaret B. Seymour, Chief
    District Judge. (3:12-cv-00628-MBS-SVH)
    Submitted:   July 10, 2012                 Decided:   July 24, 2012
    Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
    opinion.
    Cathy G. Lanier, Randy D. Lanier, Appellants Pro Se.       Steven
    Barry Licata, Columbia, South Carolina; David Randolph Whitt,
    FLEMING & WHITT, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Cathy      G.    Lanier    and      Randy        D.   Lanier      appeal        the
    district    court’s      order     denying        the    motion     for       a    temporary
    restraining      order      that   they    filed        in    connection          with    their
    action against the Appellees.
    To   the     extent    that     the    Laniers        seek   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).     To the extent that the Laniers 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    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 the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED IN PART;
    AFFIRMED IN PART
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-1441

Judges: Motz, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 7/24/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024