Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2010

Whitehead v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

Whitehead v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 12, 2010 · Michael, Gregory, Duncan
366 F. App'x 457

Counsel

David Louis Whitehead, Appellant Pro Se. Charles David Tobin, Holland & Knight, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Andrew Steven Cabana, Joseph Erwin Schuler, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Reston, Virginia; Justin Florence, O’Melveny & Myers, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Christine Hoeft McCarthy, Barnes & Thornburg, Washington, D.C.; John B. O’Keefe, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schultz, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Whitehead v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

No. 09-1512 dismissed in part, stayed in part; Nos. 09-1522, 09-1641, and 09-1784 affirmed in part, stayed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In Appeal No. 09-1512, David Louis Whitehead seeks to appeal the district court’s April 7, 2009 order: (1) denying his motion to stay the case; (2) denying his motion to reinstate certain dismissed Defendants and claims; and (3) denying his motion to reconsider the district court’s entry of a prefiling injunction against him. The order from which this appeal was noted has been vacated by the district court’s May 1, 2009 recusal order. We therefore dismiss this appeal as moot as to all Appellees except Midway Games and Midway Home Entertainment. Because Midway Games and Midway Home Entertainment filed a bankruptcy petition, we stay the appeal as to these Appellees. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2006).

Whitehead also appeals from the district court’s May 1, 2009 recusal order (Appeal No. 09-1522), the May 22, 2009 order entering a prefiling injunction against him (Appeal No. 09-1641), and the district court’s May 28, 2009 order granting the Appellees’ motions to dismiss (Appeal No. 09-1784). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm in part for the reasons stated by the district court. Whitehead v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 2009 WL 1565639 *459 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2009; May 22, 2009; May 28, 2009). We stay these appeals as to Midway Games and Midway Home Entertainment in light of their pending bankruptcy ease. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). We also deny Whitehead’s motions to enjoin Justice Sotomayer’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, to consolidate these appeals with other appeals taken to this court, and to strike Lionsgate Entertainment’s informal response brief. 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.

No. 09-1512 DISMISSED IN PART, STAYED IN PART Nos. 09-1522, 09-1641, and 09-1784 AFFIRMED IN PART, STAYED IN PART.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.