Sudduth v. Vasquez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 14, 2009
• Docket: 09-1329
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1329

ROY SUDDUTH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRENDA VASQUEZ; CARMEN BONILLA; ROBERT C. KETTLER; MITCHELL MITCHELL; ZARRICK VENEY; HERNANDO RODRIQUEZ; GLEN WHITE; CRESTVIEW COMMONS, d/b/a Fields of Landmark; WILLIAM DEARMAN; ELIJAH JOHNSON; TERRENCE D. LANGFORD; CYNTHIA THOMPSON; KIMBERLY WADE; TALORI JOHNSON; ROY TRIESE; WILLIAM D. EUILLE; KSI MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED; SCOTT MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED; AMEURFINA BRAGA; MARCELO JORDAN; EVELYN GLEASON; HAROLD MANGOLD; JOHN P. ELLIS; RICHARD V. MINIONIS; NICOLE M. BACON; LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA; HOPE MAYFIELD; BARBARA DELANDER; MARGARET N. FRENCH; BECKY J. MOORE; DONALD M. HADDOCK, JR.; JEAN KELLEHER NIEBAUER; PAULA A. AVILA-GUILLEN; DAVID MILLER; STEVEN PRESTON; ROSS CONLAN; LEE A. PALMAN; ALEXANDRIA REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY; CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA; JOHN CATLETT; JANNINE PENNELL; ROBERT RODRIGUEZ; RUSSELL FURR; TIMOTHY LAWMASTER; CITY OF ALEXANDRIA OFFICE OF BUILDING AND FIRE CODE ADMINISTRATION; CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, OFFICE OF HUMAN RIGHTS; ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA GENERAL DISTRICT COURT; ALEXANDRIA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01106-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 14, 2009 Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Sudduth, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Roy Sudduth appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion to file an amended complaint and dismissing his civil

action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Sudduth v. Vasquez, No. 1:08-cv-01106-LMB-TCB

(E.D. Va. Mar. 18, 2009). We 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