Harris v. Virginia State Bar , 102 F. App'x 329 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6046
RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
VIRGINIA STATE BAR, Richmond, Virginia,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-566-7)
Submitted: June 16, 2004 Decided: July 7, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Victor Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Kugelman, Jr., OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Victor Harris appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000) and denying his post-
judgment motion to amend his complaint and reinstate his action.
We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, we deny Harris’s motions for a review of all circuit
court transcripts and motions, for a continuance, for appointment
of counsel, and for a review of all circuit court proceedings, and
we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See
Harris v. Virginia State Bar, No. CA-03-566-7 (W.D. Va. filed Aug.
29, 2003; entered Sept. 2, 2003 & Nov. 18, 2003).
In addition, we have reviewed Harris’s response to our
order to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned for
filing frivolous appeals and why he should not be enjoined from
filing further actions in this court until the sanctions are paid.
We find his response fails to show cause why sanctions and an
injunction should not be imposed. Accordingly, having filed
numerous frivolous appeals from district court orders dismissing
his civil complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted or for seeking monetary relief from defendants who
are immune from such relief, Harris is sanctioned in the amount of
$500, payable to the Appellee, and enjoined from filing further
actions in this court until the sanctions are paid, and unless a
- 2 -
district court judge finds the action is not frivolous. See
Foley v. Fix, 106 F.3d 556, 558 (4th Cir. 1997). 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.
DISMISSED
- 3 -