Case Name: Jacob WEARING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Malcolm J. HOWARD, U.S. District Court Judge, Defendant-Appellee; Jacob Wearing, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bovis Lend Lease, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-17
Citations: 108 F. App'x 806
Docket Number: Nos. 04-1557, 04-1558
Parties: Jacob WEARING, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Malcolm J. HOWARD, U.S. District Court Judge, Defendant—Appellee. Jacob Wearing, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Bovis Lend Lease, Incorporated, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 806–807

Head Matter:
Jacob WEARING, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Malcolm J. HOWARD, U.S. District Court Judge, Defendant—Appellee. Jacob Wearing, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Bovis Lend Lease, Incorporated, Defendant—Appellee.
Nos. 04-1557, 04-1558.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 18, 2004.
Decided Sept. 17, 2004.
Jacob Wearing, Appellant pro se. Nigle Bruce Barrow, Jr., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee Bovis Lend Lease.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jacob Wearing appeals the district court's orders dismissing his civil action against Judge Malcolm J. Howard pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000), and dismissing his employment discrimination action on the ground of res judicata. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Wearing v. Howard, No. CA-03-548-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2004); Wearing v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., No. CA-03-547-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 20, 2004). We deny Wearing's motions for general relief and for a jury trial and 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