De'Lonta v. Angelone

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6645

OPHEILA AZRIEL DE’LONTA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE; M. V. SMITH, Doctor; R. HULBERT, Doctor; C. J. ANGLIKER, Doctor; DOCTOR WRAY; DOCTOR SWETTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-642-7)

Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 4, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Opheila Azriel De’Lonta, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assis- tant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; George W. Wooten, Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia; Heather Marie Kofron, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Opheila Azriel De’Lonta appeals from the district court’s

order denying a temporary restraining order and preliminary in-

junctive relief. To the extent De’Lonta appeals the denial of a

temporary restraining order, no circumstance warrants excepting

this case from the general rule that such denials are ordinarily

not apealable. See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-

30 (4th Cir. 1976). We therefore dismiss this portion of the

appeal. Insofar as De’Lonta appeals the denial of an injunction,

we find that the court applied the proper legal standard and did

not abuse its discretion. See Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough

Medical Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 814-15 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See De’Lonta v.

Angelone, No. CA-99-642-7 (W.D. Va. January 13, 2000). Finally, we

deny DeLonta’s motion to expedite appeal as moot. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART