Banks v. Pak

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7830

SIMON BANKS, t/a Judge Banks’ Group,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES C. PAK, Detective; CYNTHIA FRANK; JAMES RICHARDSON, Detective; JOHN GRIFFITH; JAMES W. HENDERSON,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

WILLIAM D. EUILLE, Mayor; VIRGINIA STATE BAR; ELLIOTT J. CASEY, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney; S. RANDOLPH SENGEL, Commonwealth Attorney,

Defendants.

No. 04-7842

SIMON BANKS, t/a Judge Banks’ Group,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ELLIOTT J. CASEY, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney; S. RANDOLPH SENGEL, Commonwealth Attorney, Defendants - Appellees,

and

CHARLES C. PAK, Detective; CYNTHIA FRANK; WILLIAM D. EUILLE, Mayor; VIRGINIA STATE BAR; JAMES RICHARDSON, Detective; JOHN GRIFFITH; JAMES W. HENDERSON,

Defendants.

No. 05-6357

SIMON BANKS, t/a Judge Banks’ Group,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES C. PAK, Detective; JOHN GRIFFITH; JAMES W. HENDERSON,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CYNTHIA FRANK; WILLIAM D. EUILLE, Mayor; VIRGINIA STATE BAR; JAMES RICHARDSON, Detective; ELLIOTT J. CASEY, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney; S. RANDOLPH SENGEL, Commonwealth Attorney,

Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District Judge. (CA-04-625)

- 2 - Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Simon Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Donald Westreich, Alexandria, Virginia; Alexander Francuzenko, O’CONNELL, O’CONNELL & SARSFIELD, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 3 - PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Simon Banks appeals

district court orders denying his motion for injunctive relief,

granting the motion to dismiss two Defendants on the basis of

prosecutorial immunity and dismissing his complaint for failing to

state a claim. We have reviewed the record and the district court

orders and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

See Banks v. Pak, No. CA-04-625 (E.D. Va., filed Sept. 2, 2004;

entered Sept. 7, 2004; filed Oct. 18, 2004; entered Oct. 19, 2004;

Feb. 2, 2005). We deny Banks’ motion to file a supplemental brief

in No. 05-6357. 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

- 4 -