Glenn HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF HOPE MILLS; Otis Wright; James Rosen; Adela Carrasco; Saba Rosen; Los Angeles County Das Office; David Clinton; Esis Ace USA; Culver City PD; Sony Pictures Entertainment; Eve Coddon; Holly Lake; James Zapp; Amy Dow; Head of Judicial Council and Administration of 391 List CA Supreme Court; Linda Lefkowitz; LAPD; Colleen R. Smith; Mellon; Schmid & Voiles; CA 2ND District Appeals Court; Sandra Barriente; Kim Russo; Opeiu Union; Christine Page; Opeiu NY; California Attorney Generals Office; Kim Wardlaw; Raymond Fisher; Marsha Berzon; United States of America; Supreme Court of the State of California; Ronald George; Carlos Moreno; Joyce Kennard; Kathryn Werdegar; Ming Chin; Marvin Baxter; Carol Corrigan; The Judicial Council of California; The Judicial Council of California, Head of 391 Section; Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of California; Roger Boren; Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles; Joe Hilberman; Kathleen McColgan; Rosen & Saba, LLP; Trailer Park, Inc.; Paul Hastings LLP; Los Angeles County; Peter Glick; Steve Cooley; Clinton & Clinton, Defendants-Appellees

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit2015-03-03No. No. 14-2044

594 F. App'x 195

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Glenn Henderson, a pro se civil litigant, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil action for the reasons explained in the court’s prior orders granting Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss. We have limited our appellate review to the issues raised in Henderson’s informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and have found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See Henderson v. Town of Hope Mills, No. 5:13-cv-00635-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 5, 2014). We 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.

AFFIRMED.