Michael Scott v. US Bank NA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to exceed length limitations [998823543-2] Originating case number: 2:09-cv-00516-RAJ-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998862741]. Mailed to: Michael Scott. [12-1365]

Appeal: 12-1365

Doc: 24

Filed: 05/29/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1365

MICHAEL A. SCOTT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
US
BANK
NA;
MERS
CORPORATION,
INC.,
f/k/a
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ; DLJ
CAPITAL, INC. ; WILCOX & SAVAGE, P.C.; KAUFMAN &
P.C.; CONRAD M. SHUMADINE; STANLEY G. BARR, JR.;
CONROD, JR.; CHARLES E. POSTON; WILLIAM M. CLARK;
CLARK,

Mortgage
MORTGAGE
CANOLES,
R. JOHAN
NANCY A.

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:09-cv-00516-RAJ-DEM)

Submitted:

May 18, 2012

Decided:

May 29, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Scott, Appellant Pro Se.
Stanley Graves Barr, Jr.,
R. Johan Conrod, Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, Virginia;
Christy Monolo, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia; Michael Scott Stein, STEIN & SMITH, Newport
News, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1365

Doc: 24

Filed: 05/29/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Scott appeals the district court’s orders
granting

the

Appellees’

motion

to

dismiss,

dismissing

his

complaint for failing to state a claim, denying his motion for
reconsideration and ordering a prefiling injunction.

We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and affirm
the

dismissal

court.

for

the

reasons

cited

by

the

district

See Scott v. US Bank NA, No. 2:09-cv-00516-RAJ-DEM (E.D.

Va. Sept. 23, 2010; Oct. 14, 2011; Feb. 17, 2012).

We review

the court’s decision to impose a prefiling injunction for abuse
of discretion.

See Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d

812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004).
Scott

has

frivolous
court.
is

a

history

lawsuits

We agree with the district court that

of

that

filing

impose

a

vexatious,

repetitious

considerable

burden

and

on

the

Accordingly, we conclude that the prefiling injunction

not

overbroad

and

that

the

court

did

not

abuse

its

discretion.
We

affirm

the

district

court’s

orders.

We

grant

Scott’s motion to exceed the length limitations for informal
briefs.
legal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions

are

adequately

2

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 12-1365

before

Doc: 24

Filed: 05/29/2012

the

and

court

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3