UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6154

FRIZELL STEPHENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN B. TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-1224-R)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frizell Stephens, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying Appellant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and denying his motion for recusal of the district court judge. We have re- viewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error in the district court's order denying Appellant's Rule 60(b) motion.* Accordingly, we affirm in part on the reasoning of the district court. Stephens v. Taylor, No. CA-95-1224-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 21, 1995). We dismiss as interlocutory the appeal of the order denying the motion for re- cusal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). We deny Appellant's motion for 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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

* To the extent that Appellant's motion for a preliminary in- junction could be construed as a motion for a temporary restraining order, the order denying reconsideration of the denial of that motion is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory order. See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976).