Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01320/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01320-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Meymandi Assad

Chicago Sun-Times

Eleanor Cruise

Detroit Free Press

Los Angeles Times

Pamela Melvin
Appellant
Social Security Administration
Appellee
Star-Ledger

Tampa Bay Times

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution

The Boston Globe

The Dallas Morning News

The Philadelphia Inquirer

The Washington Post

USA Today

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1320

PAMELA MELVIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

THE WASHINGTON POST; USA TODAY; THE BOSTON GLOBE; CHICAGO 

SUN-TIMES; DETROIT FREE PRESS; LOS ANGELES TIMES; THE 

PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER; STAR-LEDGER; TAMPA BAY TIMES; THE 

DALLAS MORNING NEWS; THE ATLANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION; 

DR. MEYMANDI ASSAD; DR. ELEANOR CRUISE,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:14-cv-00170-F)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Appeal: 15-1320 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Pamela Melvin, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1320 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Pamela Melvin seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying her “emergency motion for protection and restraining 

order.” To the extent that Melvin seeks to appeal the district 

court’s denial of a temporary restraining order, the denial is 

not appealable under the circumstances of this case. See

Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029–30 (4th Cir. 

1976). To the extent that she sought a preliminary injunction, 

we have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in 

the district court’s denial. See 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 this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART

Appeal: 15-1320 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3