Case Name: Ronnie SANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. BODDIE-NOELL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Hardees of Emporia, Defendant-Appellee, and Alvin Teeter; Sylvia Gray, Defendants, v. Joel D. Bieber, Movant-Appellant, and Young Broadcasting of Richmond, Incorporated, Party in Interest
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-17
Citations: 170 F. App'x 850
Docket Number: No. 05-2053
Parties: Ronnie SANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. BODDIE-NOELL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Hardees of Emporia, Defendant—Appellee, and Alvin Teeter; Sylvia Gray, Defendants, v. Joel D. Bieber, Movant—Appellant, and Young Broadcasting of Richmond, Incorporated, Party in Interest.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 170
Pages: 850–851

Head Matter:
Ronnie SANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. BODDIE-NOELL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Hardees of Emporia, Defendant—Appellee, and Alvin Teeter; Sylvia Gray, Defendants, v. Joel D. Bieber, Movant—Appellant, and Young Broadcasting of Richmond, Incorporated, Party in Interest.
No. 05-2053.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 28, 2006.
Decided March 17, 2006.
L. Steven Emmert, Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. C. Kailani Memmer, Elizabeth K. Dillon, Guynn, Memmer & Dillon, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Joel D. Bieber appeals a district court order sanctioning him for obstructing the opposing party's access to evidence. We agree with the district court that a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Bieber's conduct would be that the expert witness hired by the defense would not be permitted by his employer to testify. We also agree that Bieber is responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Bieber v. Teeter, No. CA-04-888-3 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 17, 2005; entered Aug. 18, 2005). 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