Ronnie Sanderson v. BODDIE-NOELL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Hardees of Emporia

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2053
RONNIE SANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
versus
BODDIE-NOELL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a
Hardees of Emporia,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
ALVIN TEETER; SYLVIA GRAY,
Defendants,
versus
JOEL D. BIEBER,
Movant - Appellant,
and
YOUNG BROADCASTING OF RICHMOND, INCORPORATED,
Party in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CA-04-888-3)

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: March 17, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Steven Emmert, SYKES, BOURDON, AHERN & LEVY, P.C., Virginia
Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. C. Kailani Memmer, Elizabeth K.
Dillon, GUYNN, MEMMER & DILLON, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Joel D. Bieber appeals a district court order sanctioning
him for obstructing the opposing party’s access to evidence. We
agree with the district court that a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of Bieber’s conduct would be that the expert witness
hired by the defense would not be permitted by his employer to
testify. We also agree that Bieber is responsible for the
reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See
Bieber v. Teeter, No. CA-04-888-3 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 17, 2005;
entered Aug. 18, 2005). 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

-- 3 of 3 --