James Lenard Small, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Nathan A. Rice; Charles Creecy; Robert W. Smith; Charleshill; Daniel Durham; Deborah Holtrop; Dr.sutton; Raymond Adams; Dr. Byrum,defendants-appellees, 900 F.2d 255 (4th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 900 F.2d 255 (4th Cir. 1990) Submitted: Jan. 24, 1990. Decided: March 23, 1990

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Chief District Judge. (C/A No. 89-687-CRT)

James Lenard Small, appellant pro se.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:


James Lenard Small appeals the district court's denial of injunctive relief in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Small had requested immediate transfer to another prison unit and an order that prison authorities cease threatening him. We affirm.

The denial of a temporary restraining order is not immediately appealable unless there are exceptional circumstances not present here. Commonwealth of Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026 (4th Cir. 1976); Drudge v. McKernon, 482 F.2d 1375 (4th Cir. 1975).

The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1) and is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Wetzel v. Edwards, 635 F.2d 283 (4th Cir. 1980). The test involves a balance of hardship through consideration of the following factors: (1) the plaintiff's likelihood of success in the underlying dispute, (2) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied, (3) injury to the defendant if the injunction is granted, and (4) the public interest. After a review of the record developed thus far, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief. Accordingly, we affirm the order appealed. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.