Filed: Feb. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1968 JAMES L. ROUDABUSH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THOMAS M. BELK, JR.; BELK STORES, INC.; JAN W. WALKE; HARNEY; SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY SHERIFF; WILLIAM NEELY; JOHN DOE, Loss Prevention Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00255-GCM) Submitted: January 17, 2012 Decided: February 1
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1968 JAMES L. ROUDABUSH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THOMAS M. BELK, JR.; BELK STORES, INC.; JAN W. WALKE; HARNEY; SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY SHERIFF; WILLIAM NEELY; JOHN DOE, Loss Prevention Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00255-GCM) Submitted: January 17, 2012 Decided: February 13..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1968
JAMES L. ROUDABUSH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
THOMAS M. BELK, JR.; BELK STORES, INC.; JAN W. WALKE;
HARNEY; SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY SHERIFF; WILLIAM NEELY; JOHN
DOE, Loss Prevention Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00255-GCM)
Submitted: January 17, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James L. Roudabush, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James L. Roudabush appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Roudabush v. Belk,
No. 3:11-cv-00255-GCM (W.D.N.C. Aug. 8 & 19, 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
2