Filed: Apr. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7717 MITCHELL BIAS DUNLOW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR IBARA; NURSE STEVENSON; NURSE BEVERLY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1030-AM) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7717 MITCHELL BIAS DUNLOW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR IBARA; NURSE STEVENSON; NURSE BEVERLY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1030-AM) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7717
MITCHELL BIAS DUNLOW,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DOCTOR IBARA; NURSE STEVENSON; NURSE BEVERLY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief
District Judge. (CA-95-1030-AM)
Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mitchell Bias Dunlow, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing
without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint and denying
his motion for temporary restraining order. Because no exceptional
circumstances exist, the denial of Appellant's motion for a tempo-
rary restraining order is not appealable. Drudge v. McKernon,
482
F.2d 1375 (4th Cir. 1973). In addition, the district court dis-
missed Appellant's complaint without prejudice for failure to
allege facts indicating that his constitutional rights had been
violated. Because a dismissal without prejudice is not generally
appealable, we dismiss the appeal. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar
Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). We
deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. 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
2