Glenn Henderson v. David Mckenzie, No. 14-2269 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2269 GLENN HENDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID LOAR MCKENZIE; SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT;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. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:14-cv-00029-FL) Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 27, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. David Loar Mckenzie, SANDS ANDERSON PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Glenn Henderson appeals the district court’s orders imposing a pre-filing injunction 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). affirm for the reasons stated by the Accordingly, we district court. See Henderson v. Mckenzie, No. 5:14-cv-00029-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2 & Oct. 29, 2014). facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.