Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-27
Citations: 599 F. App'x 518
Docket Number: No. 14-2269
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 518–519

Head Matter:
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.
No. 14-2269.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2015.
Decided: April 27, 2015.
Glenn Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. David Loar Mckenzie, Sands Anderson PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lees.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Glenn Henderson appeals the district court's orders imposing a pre-filing injunc tion 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.