Case Name: Robert V. RODGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PREFERRED CAROLINAS REALTY, INC.; James E. Allen, Jr.; Jim Allen Group, Inc.; Harry James Thorpe, Defendants-Appellees, and Randall Eichorn; Lisa Eichorn; W. Sidney Aldridge; Nicholls & Crampton, PA, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-02
Citations: 675 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 16-1387
Parties: Robert V. RODGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PREFERRED CAROLINAS REALTY, INC.; James E. Allen, Jr.; Jim Allen Group, Inc.; Harry James Thorpe, Defendants-Appellees, and Randall Eichorn; Lisa Eichorn; W. Sidney Aldridge; Nicholls & Crampton, PA, Defendants.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and' WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 317–318

Head Matter:
Robert V. RODGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PREFERRED CAROLINAS REALTY, INC.; James E. Allen, Jr.; Jim Allen Group, Inc.; Harry James Thorpe, Defendants-Appellees, and Randall Eichorn; Lisa Eichorn; W. Sidney Aldridge; Nicholls & Crampton, PA, Defendants.
No. 16-1387
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 27, 2017
Decided: February 2, 2017
R. Hayes Hofler, III, HAYES HO-FLER, PA, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Bryan T. Simpson, Natalia K. Isenberg, TEAGUE, CAMPBELL, DEN NIS & GORHAM, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and' WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert V. Rodgers appeals from the district court's order sua sponte granting reconsideration of a prior order and entering summary judgment in favor of the Defendants as to all of Rodgers' claims. We have reviewed the record included on appeal, including the district court's opinions, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. In re Rodgers (Rodgers v. Preferred Carolinas Realty, Inc.), No. 5:13-cv-00764-FL, 2016 WL 917317 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 8, 2016). 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