Pamela Melvin v. SSA, No. 15-1320 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1320 PAMELA MELVIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant -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 Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Pamela Melvin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying order.”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

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.