James Roudabush, Jr. v. Hylton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00376-RBS-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999766208]. Mailed to: appellant. [15-7589]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7589 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7589 JAMES L. ROUDABUSH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HYLTON, CDUSM, U. S. Marshal Service; D. LAWHORNE, Sheriff; STERNS, Chief; COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY - ALEXANDRIA (VA); K. PEDERSEN, AUSA, EDVA; F. MILANO, Captain; J. COREY; G. HUNTER; LIEUTENANT M. JOSIAH; DIRECTOR, American Correctional Association; C. M. HILTON, USDJ, EDVA; EDWARD SEMONIAN, Circuit Court Clerk; R. STERNS, Deputy, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cv-00376-RBS-TEM) Submitted: February 16, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016 Before WYNN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-7589 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: James Lester Roudabush, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2012) for failure to state a claim. and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Roudabush v. Hylton, No. 2:15-cv-00376-RBS-TEM (E.D. Va. Sept. 2, 2015). We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before this court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?