Whitehead v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 366 F. App'x 475 (4th Cir. 2010). · Go Syfert
Whitehead v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 366 F. App'x 475 (4th Cir. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David Louis WHITEHEAD, Plaintiff—Appellant,
v.
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, INCORPORATED; Tyndale House Publishers, Incorporated; New Market Films, Incorporated; Fox 43, Defendants—Appellees; David Louis Whitehead, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Incorporated; Tyndale House Publishers, Incorporated; New Market Films, Incorporated; Fox 43, Defendants—Appellees
09-1431, 09-1736.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Feb 24, 2010.
Unpublished opinion
366 F. App'x 475
David Louis Whitehead, Appellant Pro Se.
Wilkinson, Gregory, Hamilton.
Unpublished

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Louis Whitehead appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to[*476] reopen or reassign his case and reconsideration thereof and the district court’s order denying his motion to recuse the district court judge and consolidate his case and reconsideration thereof. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Whitehead v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., No. 1:06-cv-01349-CMH-LO (E.D. Va. Mar. 16, 2009; filed Mar. 31, 2009 & entered Apr. 2, 2009; filed May 8, 2009 & entered May 13, 2009). We deny Whitehead’s motion to consolidate these appeals with other appeals he has filed with this court, deny his emergency consolidated motion for injunctive relief, and deny his supplemental motions for injunctive relief. 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.