Case Name: Stephen Mark HAUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. MILES, LCDC Physician; Major Jones, LCDC Supt; The Lexington County Detention Center, in their individual and/or official capacities; Correct Care Solutions, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-02
Citations: 574 F. App'x 241
Docket Number: No. 14-6035
Parties: Stephen Mark HAUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. MILES, LCDC Physician; Major Jones, LCDC Supt; The Lexington County Detention Center, in their individual and/or official capacities; Correct Care Solutions, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 574
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
Stephen Mark HAUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. MILES, LCDC Physician; Major Jones, LCDC Supt; The Lexington County Detention Center, in their individual and/or official capacities; Correct Care Solutions, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-6035.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 29, 2014.
Decided: June 2, 2014.
Stephen Mark Hause, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Victor Gende, John Earle Tyler, Sweeny, Wingate & Barrow, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Justin Tyler Bagwell, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Mark Hause seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction filed in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) proceeding. To the extent that Hause seeks to appeal the district court's denial of a temporary restraining order, the denial is not appeal-able on the circumstances of this case. See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir.1976). To the extent that he 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. 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 deny Hause's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.