Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
12-1441•Cathy G. Lanier; Randy D. Lanier v. Branch Banking & Trust Company
12-1441Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit24.07.2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1441
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.
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)
Submitted: July 10, 2012 Decided: July 24, 2012
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Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
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
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.