Glenn Henderson v. David Mckenzie

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cv-00029-FL Copies to all parties and the district court. [999572054]. Mailed to: Glenn Henderson. [14-2269]

Appeal: 14-2269

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2269

GLENN HENDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID LOAR MCKENZIE; SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT; KIM RUSSO;
SCHMID & VOILES; KATHLEEN MCCOLGAN, Esq.; ROSEN & SABA, LLP;
JAMES ROSEN, Esq.; ADELA CARRASCO, Esq.,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:14-cv-00029-FL)

Submitted:

April 23, 2015

Decided: April 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Glenn Henderson, Appellant Pro Se.
David Loar Mckenzie, SANDS
ANDERSON PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2269

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Glenn

Henderson

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

imposing a pre-filing injunction and denying Henderson’s Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that order.

We have

reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing the pre-filing injunction.

See

Cromer v. Kraft Foods N.A., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817-18 (4th Cir.
2004) (setting forth standard of review and four factors used to
evaluate propriety of a pre-filing injunction).
affirm

for

the

reasons

stated

by

the

Accordingly, we

district

court.

See

Henderson v. Mckenzie, No. 5:14-cv-00029-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2 &
Oct. 29, 2014).
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2