Opinion
No. 14-2044
03-03-2015
Glenn Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Cathryn MacDonald Little, LITTLE & LITTLE, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina; Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; David Loar Mckenzie, SANDS ANDERSON PC, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jill Williams, CARPENTER ROTHANS & DUMONT, Los Angeles, California; Charles Andrew Patrizia, PAUL HASTINGS LLP, Washington, D.C.; Sarah Lee Overton, CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS, ACHO & ASSOCIATES, PC, Riverside, California; Monica E. Webb, MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Donna M. Dean, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Los Angeles, California; Narendra K. Ghosh, PATTERSON HARKAVY, LLP, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-cv-00635-FL) Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Cathryn MacDonald Little, LITTLE & LITTLE, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina; Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; David Loar Mckenzie, SANDS ANDERSON PC, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jill Williams, CARPENTER ROTHANS & DUMONT, Los Angeles, California; Charles Andrew Patrizia, PAUL HASTINGS LLP, Washington, D.C.; Sarah Lee Overton, CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS, ACHO & ASSOCIATES, PC, Riverside, California; Monica E. Webb, MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Donna M. Dean, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Los Angeles, California; Narendra K. Ghosh, PATTERSON HARKAVY, LLP, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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