Stephen Hause v. Dr. Miles, No. 14-6035 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6035 STEPHEN MARK HAUSE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. DR. MILES, LCDC Physician; MAJOR JONES, LCDC Supt; THE LEXINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, in their individual and/or official capacities; CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:13-cv-01271-RMG-BM) Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Mark Hause, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Victor Gende, John Earle Tyler, SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Justin Tyler Bagwell, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stephen Mark Hause seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction § 1983 (2012) proceeding. filed in his 42 U.S.C. To the extent that Hause seeks to appeal the district court s denial of a temporary restraining order, the denial is not appealable on the circumstances of this case. (4th See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029 30 Cir. 1976). To the extent that he also sought a preliminary injunction, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court s denial of any such request was not an abuse of its discretion. 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. motion for appointment of counsel. We We deny Hause s 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 2

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.