Sealed Appellee 1 v. Sealed Appellant 1, No. 15-10441 (5th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-10441 Summary Calendar SEALED APPELLEE 1, FILED January 4, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellee v. SEALED APPELLANT 1, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15-CV-01388-P Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-appellant filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s order granting plaintiff-appellee a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to prevent defendant from violating the terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement concerning an employment dispute. Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), the district court later extended the TRO two times Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * No. 15-10441 for fourteen days each in order to allow the magistrate judge to hold an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and to issue her report and recommendations to the district court. The TRO expired on June 15, 2015, and the magistrate judge submitted her report and recommendations. On November 30, 2015 the district court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. In this appeal, the plaintiff challenges: (1) the issuance of the TRO; (2) the extensions of the TRO; and (3) the magistrate judge’s report to the district court on the motion for a preliminary injunction. In light of the district court’s November 30th order granting plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, defendant’s appeal of the temporary restraining order has been rendered moot. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED. 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.