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 for fourteen days each in order to allow the magistrate judge to hold an evi-dentiary hearing on the plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.