Case Name: Willard R. MEADOWS; Virginia E. Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Carmen McCroskey, Plaintiff, v. Robert P. DOHERTY, Jr., Judge, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-28
Citations: 60 F. App'x 438
Docket Number: No. 02-2043
Parties: Willard R. MEADOWS; Virginia E. Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Carmen McCroskey, Plaintiff, v. Robert P. DOHERTY, Jr., Judge, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
Willard R. MEADOWS; Virginia E. Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Carmen McCroskey, Plaintiff, v. Robert P. DOHERTY, Jr., Judge, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-2043.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 21, 2003.
Decided March 28, 2003.
Willard R. Meadows, Virginia E. Williams, Appellants Pro Se. Edward Meade Macon, OFfice of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
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.