Meadows v. Doherty ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2043
WILLARD R. MEADOWS; VIRGINIA E. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
CARMEN MCCROSKEY,
Plaintiff,
versus
ROBERT P. DOHERTY, JR., Judge,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-02-29-7)
Submitted: March 21, 2003 Decided: March 28, 2003
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Willard R. Meadows, Virginia E. Williams, Appellants Pro Se.
Edward Meade Macon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Willard R. Meadows and Virginia E. Williams appeal the
district court’s order denying their motion for a temporary
injunction. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
To the extent the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining
order, the denial of a temporary restraining order is ordinarily
not appealable absent exceptional circumstances. Virginia v.
Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976). Because this
case presents no such circumstances, we decline to review the
denial of the request for a temporary restraining order and dismiss
this portion of the appeal.
To the extent that plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction,
we have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find
no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of
preliminary injunctive relief for the reasons stated by the
district court. Meadows v. Doherty, No. CA-02-29-7 (W.D. Va. Aug.
8, 2002). 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
3