From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lanier v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jul 24, 2012
474 F. App'x 251 (4th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 12-1441

07-24-2012

CATHY G. LANIER; RANDY D. LANIER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY; BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC; FLEMING & WHITT PA; MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES PA; DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants - Appellees.

Cathy G. Lanier, Randy D. Lanier, Appellants Pro Se. Steven Barry Licata, Columbia, South Carolina; David Randolph Whitt, FLEMING & WHITT, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00628-MBS-SVH)

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cathy G. Lanier, Randy D. Lanier, Appellants Pro Se. Steven Barry Licata, Columbia, South Carolina; David Randolph Whitt, FLEMING & WHITT, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Cathy G. Lanier and Randy D. Lanier appeal the district court's order denying the motion for a temporary restraining order that they filed in connection with their action against the Appellees.

To the extent that the Laniers seek to appeal the district court's denial of a temporary restraining order, the denial is not appealable on the circumstances of this case. See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976). To the extent that the Laniers 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. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008); 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART


Summaries of

Lanier v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jul 24, 2012
474 F. App'x 251 (4th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

Lanier v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

Case Details

Full title:CATHY G. LANIER; RANDY D. LANIER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. BRANCH…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 24, 2012

Citations

474 F. App'x 251 (4th Cir. 2012)

Citing Cases

In re Carroll

Following Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010) and its…