Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02269/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02269-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adela Carrasco
Appellee
Glenn Henderson
Appellant
Kathleen McColgan
Appellee
David Loar Mckenzie
Appellee
James Rosen
Appellee
Rosen & Saba, LLP
Appellee
Kim Russo
Appellee
Schmid & Voiles
Appellee
Sony Pictures Entertainment
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 2
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). Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

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

Oct. 29, 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

Appeal: 14-2269 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 2