
    Judy WHITE, a/k/a Judith Ayers White; Gary L. White, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. W. MACKELBURG, both personally and in his official capacity; Rex Blocker, both personally and in his official capacity; V. Kepner, both personally and in her official capacity; W. Anderson, both personally and in his official capacity; FNU Carter, both personally and in her official capacity; V. Wilkins, both personally and in her official capacity; M. Huger, both personally and in her official capacity; P. Moreau, both personally and in his official capacity; B. Ingram, both personally and in his official capacity; Edgefield Federal Prison; Southeast Regional Office of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, The; Federal Bureau of Prisons, The; Defendants Through Z, continued from Defendants A: relative to the events made the basis of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, all of whom are unknown at the time of the filing of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint but will be added by amendment when ascertained; Defendants A, being those persons or entities that participated in any manner whatsoever and/or conspired in any manner whatsoever, whether directly or indirectly, regardless of knowledge aforehand, in any act or omission—Continued under Defendants through Z; M. Mitchell, both personally and in her official capacity; R. Kelso, both personally and in her official capacity, Defendants—Appellees, and M. Miller, both personally and in her official capacity; FNU Kelso, both personally and in his official capacity, Defendants.
    No. 11-1787.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 20, 2011.
    Decided: Dec. 22, 2011.
    Judy White and Gary White, Appellants Pro Se.
    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Judy and Gary White appeal the district court’s orders accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying emergency relief, dismissing without prejudice their civil complaint for failure to prosecute under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41, and denying reconsideration. We review a district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir.1989). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. White v. Mackelburg, No. 8:11-cv-00144-HMH, 2011 WL 1168428 (D.S.C. March 29, 2011); (May 10, 2011); 2011 WL 2133700 (May 26, 2011); (June 20, 2011; July 6, 2011). 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. 
      
       To the extent that the Whites appeal the denial of temporary restraining orders, such orders are generally not appealable. See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir.1976). We therefore dismiss the appeal insofar as they are appealing the denial of temporary restraining orders.
     