Filed: Aug. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6863 PIERRE A. RENOIR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, Red Onion State Prison, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (MISC-99-49-7) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6863 PIERRE A. RENOIR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, Red Onion State Prison, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (MISC-99-49-7) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6863
PIERRE A. RENOIR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, Red Onion State
Prison,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (MISC-99-49-7)
Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999
Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pierre A. Renoir, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Pierre A. Renoir sought a temporary restraining order prohib-
iting Defendant from denying him medical treatment and attempting
to harm him in retaliation for filing civil claims against it. He
now appeals the district court’s denial of a temporary restraining
order and the further denial of preliminary injunctive relief. To
the extent that Renoir appeals from the court’s denial of a tempo-
rary restraining order, that order is not appealable. See Virginia
v. Tenneco, Inc.,
538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976). We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion denying
preliminary injunctive relief and find no abuse of discretion. See
Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Medical Corp.,
952 F.2d 802,
812-13 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. See Renoir v. Correctional Medical Services,
No. MISC-99-49-7 (W.D. Va. June 9, 1999). We further deny Renoir’s
motion to consolidate this appeal with Appeals No. 99-6698, 99-
6596, 99-6722. 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.
AFFIRMED
2