Hoover v. Briggs , 42 F. App'x 593 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1538
KATHERINE A. HOOVER, M.D.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
ALFRED J. VINCENT, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
versus
ELLEN BRIGGS; RONALD WALTON; DEBRA LEWIS
RODECKER; AHMED D. FAHEEM; LEE ELLIOTT SMITH,
M.D.; EILEEN CATTERSON; H. DARREL DARBY;
KATHLEEN WIDES, M.D.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers, District
Judge. (CA-01-300-C)
Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Katherine A. Hoover, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Katherine A. Hoover, M.D., appeals the district court’s order
denying a “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Injunctive
Relief,” and other post-judgment motions. 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 exceptional
circumstances, we decline to review the denial of a temporary
restraining order and dismiss the appeal insofar as it pertains to
that portion of the district court’s order. Insofar as Hoover
appeals the denial of her request for a preliminary injunction, we
have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no
abuse of discretion. To the extent that Hoover appeals that part
of the district court’s order denying her other post-judgment
motions, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s order
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Hoover v. Briggs, No. CA-01-
300-C (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 16, 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
3