Pamela Melvin v. SSA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cv-00170-F. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999680226]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-1320]

Appeal: 15-1320

Doc: 20

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1320

PAMELA MELVIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
THE WASHINGTON POST; USA TODAY; THE BOSTON GLOBE; CHICAGO
SUN-TIMES; DETROIT FREE PRESS; LOS ANGELES TIMES; THE
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER; STAR-LEDGER; TAMPA BAY TIMES; THE
DALLAS MORNING NEWS; THE ATLANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION;
DR. MEYMANDI ASSAD; DR. ELEANOR CRUISE,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-cv-00170-F)

Submitted:

October 15, 2015

Decided:

October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Appeal: 15-1320

Doc: 20

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Pamela Melvin, Appellant Pro Se.
Michael Gordon James, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-1320

Doc: 20

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Pamela Melvin seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying
order.”

her

“emergency

motion

for

protection

and

restraining

To the extent that Melvin seeks to appeal the district

court’s denial of a temporary restraining order, the denial is
not

appealable

Virginia
1976).

v.

under

Tenneco,

the

circumstances

Inc.,

538

F.2d

of

1026,

this

case.

1029–30

(4th

See
Cir.

To the extent that she sought a preliminary injunction,

we have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in
the district court’s denial.

See 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

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3