Michael Pack v. G. John

Filing 920080912

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1330

MICHAEL L. PACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. G. MICHAEL JOHN, Attorney, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00399-RDB)

Submitted:

August 22, 2008

Decided:

September 12, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael L. Pack, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Michael L. Pack appeals a district court order summarily dismissing his complaint as frivolous. We have reviewed the order

and the district court record and dismiss the appeal as frivolous on the reasoning of the district court. 1:08-cv-00399-RDB (D. Md. Feb. 28, 2008). Based on Pack's history of filing frivolous cases in the district court and frivolous appeals in this court, we ordered Pack to show cause why he should not be enjoined from filing appeals in this court without first receiving certification from the district court that the appeal is not frivolous. Pack filed a response See Pack v. John, No.

claiming his cases are not frivolous. After reviewing his response and Pack's cases, we disagree. As the district court noted, Pack

has filed about eighty cases in the district court since 1995, the majority of which were summarily dismissed. frivolous appeals in this court. Pack has also filed

Given his disregard for the

limited resources of this court, we enjoin Pack from filing appeals in this court without first receiving certification from the district court that the appeal is not frivolous. Any appeal in a

civil case Pack presents to this court without district court certification will not be filed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

2

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

3