Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07584/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07584-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7584

JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR., 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

THEODORE C. NELSON, SA, U.S. Department of State; JASON 

CALLAHAN, Detective, Prince William County Police 

Department; STEPHAN HUDSON, Chief, Prince William Police 

Department; REBECCA THATCHER, Assistant Commonwealth 

Attorney; JOHN/JANE DOE, Prince William County Police 

Department, Evidence Sect. Director; CHRIS FELDMAN, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief 

District Judge. (2:13-cv-00641-RBS-DEM) 

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark Anthony 

Exley, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-7584 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

James Lester Roudabush, Jr., appeals from the district 

court’s October 3, 2014, order dismissing Defendants Feldman, 

Thatcher, and Hudson, the court’s July 7, 2015, order granting 

Defendant Nelson’s motion for summary judgment, and the court’s 

September 2, 2015, order denying his motion for reconsideration, 

granting his motion for voluntary dismissal, and dismissing his 

action raising claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents 

of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012). 

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in 

the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because 

Roudabush’s informal brief does not proffer specific argument 

challenging the bases for the district court’s dispositions, 

Roudabush has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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

Appeal: 15-7584 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 2