Filed: Feb. 16, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2293 MICHAEL J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PATRICIA L. HARRINGTON; DOUGLAS B. ROBELEN, State Actor; HON. GERALD BRUCE LEE; PHYLLIS T. WALTON; LISA GRAYSON; U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE; JOHN HACKMAN, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:09-cv-01082-GBL-IDD) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2293 MICHAEL J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PATRICIA L. HARRINGTON; DOUGLAS B. ROBELEN, State Actor; HON. GERALD BRUCE LEE; PHYLLIS T. WALTON; LISA GRAYSON; U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE; JOHN HACKMAN, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:09-cv-01082-GBL-IDD) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 1..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2293
MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PATRICIA L. HARRINGTON; DOUGLAS B. ROBELEN, State Actor;
HON. GERALD BRUCE LEE; PHYLLIS T. WALTON; LISA GRAYSON; U.S.
MARSHAL SERVICE; JOHN HACKMAN,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:09-cv-01082-GBL-IDD)
Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael J. Sindram appeals the district court’s
orders: (1) denying his fourth motion seeking leave to appeal in
forma pauperis; (2) denying his motion seeking the recusal of
the district court judge under Fed. R. Civ. P. 63; (3) denying
his motion for clarification and modification; and (4) imposing
a pre-filing injunction and striking Sindram’s Amended Verified
Complaint and Request for Injunctive Relief.
With respect to Sindram’s effort to re-litigate the
legality of the district court’s order imposing a pre-filing
injunction, this court addressed his claims in a prior appeal,
concluding that the court erred in imposing the pre-filing
injunction sua sponte, vacating its order imposing the
injunction, striking Sindram’s amended complaint and request for
injunctive relief, and remanding the case for further
proceedings. See Sindram v. Harrington, No. 10-2073,
2010 WL
5392910 (4th Cir. Dec. 22, 2010). Accordingly, we conclude that
Sindram’s challenge is barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine
and that none of the exceptions to the doctrine apply.
See United States v. Aramony,
166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999)
(discussing doctrine and exceptions thereto).
With respect to the district court’s order denying
Sindram’s fourth motion seeking leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, although the order is appealable, Sindram’s appellate
2
brief alleges no relevant claim of error by the district court.
We therefore conclude that Sindram has forfeited appellate
review of this order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Wahi v. Charleston
Area Med. Ctr., Inc.,
562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009), cert.
denied,
130 S. Ct. 1140 (2010); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,
178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
Finally, with respect to the district court’s orders
denying Sindram’s motions for recusal and clarification, this
court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). These orders
are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or
collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of these
orders for lack of jurisdiction.
We therefore grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal and affirm in part and dismiss in part. 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 IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART
3