Case Name: James Lester ROUDABUSH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sgt. F. MENSAH; D. Lawhorne, Sheriff; Stearns, Chief; F. Milano, Captain; G. Hunter; C.M. Kylton, USDJ; Ms. Ervin, Classification Supv.; Graham, Classification Counselor; Hylton, Director, U.S. Marshal Service; J. Corey, FPDO; A. Anderson, SAUSA; K. Pedersen, AUSA; Lt. Rea, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-19
Citations: 593 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 14-7827
Parties: James Lester ROUDABUSH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sgt. F. MENSAH; D. Lawhorne, Sheriff; Stearns, Chief; F. Milano, Captain; G. Hunter; C.M. Kylton, USDJ; Ms. Ervin, Classification Supv.; Graham, Classification Counselor; Hylton, Director, U.S. Marshal Service; J. Corey, FPDO; A. Anderson, SAUSA; K. Pedersen, AUSA; Lt. Rea, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 593
Pages: 233–234

Head Matter:
James Lester ROUDABUSH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sgt. F. MENSAH; D. Lawhorne, Sheriff; Stearns, Chief; F. Milano, Captain; G. Hunter; C.M. Kylton, USDJ; Ms. Ervin, Classification Supv.; Graham, Classification Counselor; Hylton, Director, U.S. Marshal Service; J. Corey, FPDO; A. Anderson, SAUSA; K. Pedersen, AUSA; Lt. Rea, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-7827.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 12, 2015.
Decided: Feb. 19, 2015.
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Lester Roudabush, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying his post-judgment motion to reopen proceedings in his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Roudabush v. Sgt. F. Mensah, No. 2:13-cv-00646-RBS-LRL (E.D.Va. Nov. 10, 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.