James Roudabush, Jr. v. Theodore Nelson

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7584

JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THEODORE C. NELSON, SA, U.S. Department of State; JASON
CALLAHAN, Detective, Prince William County Police
Department; STEPHAN HUDSON, Chief, Prince William Police
Department; REBECCA THATCHER, Assistant Commonwealth
Attorney; JOHN/JANE DOE, Prince William County Police
Department, Evidence Sect. Director; CHRIS FELDMAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00641-RBS-DEM)

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark Anthony
Exley, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

James Lester Roudabush, Jr., appeals from the district

court’s October 3, 2014, order dismissing Defendants Feldman,

Thatcher, and Hudson, the court’s July 7, 2015, order granting

Defendant Nelson’s motion for summary judgment, and the court’s

September 2, 2015, order denying his motion for reconsideration,

granting his motion for voluntary dismissal, and dismissing his

action raising claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2012).

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in

the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because

Roudabush’s informal brief does not proffer specific argument

challenging the bases for the district court’s dispositions,

Roudabush has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

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

2