Bates v. Federal Reserve Bank

Fourth Circuit

Bates v. Federal Reserve Bank

615 F. App'x 126

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 31, 2015

DocketNos. 15-1610, 15-1611, 15-1612, 15-1613, 15-1614, 15-1615, 15-1616

StatusPublished

This text of 615 F. App'x 126 (Bates v. Federal Reserve Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bates v. Federal Reserve Bank, 615 F. App'x 126 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Hephzibah Bates appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her complaints in her consolidated civil suits as frivolous and entering a prefiling injunction preventing Bates from filing further complaints related to the issues raised in the instant complaints. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bates v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond, 3:14-cv-00320-REP (E.D.Va. May 15, 2015); see [127]*127also Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Amer., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir.2004) (setting forth standard of review of prefiling injunction). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this eourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Hephzibah Bates appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her complaints in her consolidated civil suits as frivolous and entering a prefiling injunction preventing Bates from filing further complaints related to the issues raised in the instant complaints. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bates v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond, 3:14-cv-00320-REP (E.D.Va. May 15, 2015); see [127]*127also Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Amer., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir.2004) (setting forth standard of review of prefiling injunction). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this eourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 F. App'x 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bates-v-federal-reserve-bank-ca4-2015.