Case ID: f-appx_42/html/0593-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Katherine A. HOOVER, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, and Alfred J. Vincent, M.D., Plaintiff, v. 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.
    No. 02-1538.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 25, 2002.
    Decided July 31, 2002.
    Katherine A. Hoover, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Katherine A. Hoover, M.D., appeals the district court’s order denying a “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or In-junctive 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.