Ronald Emrit v. American Communication
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00776-TDS-LPA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999426912]. Mailed to: Ronald Emrit. [14-1354]
Appeal: 14-1354
Doc: 12
Filed: 09/02/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1354
RONALD SATISH EMRIT,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00776-TDS-LPA)
Submitted:
August 27, 2014
Decided:
September 2, 2014
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se. Mark A. Stafford, NELSON
MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-1354
Doc: 12
Filed: 09/02/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district court’s order
dismissing
his
jurisdiction.
civil
We
action
have
for
reviewed
lack
the
of
record
subject
and
the
matter
parties’
informal briefs on appeal, and we conclude that this appeal is
frivolous.
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989);
Emrit v. Am. Commc’ns Network, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00776-TDS-LPA
(M.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 2014); see also 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting
appellate
review
Accordingly,
we
to
issues
dismiss
raised
the
in
informal
appeal.
See
brief).
28
U.S.C.
Appellee’s
request
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012).
Additionally,
we
have
for sanctions against Emrit.
We decline to impose the requested
prefiling
injunction
juncture.
See Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812,
817-18
(4th
Cir.
relevant factors).
or
considered
2004)
similar
(discussing
“gateway”
prefiling
order
at
injunction
this
and
However, Emrit is hereby warned that federal
courts, including this court, are authorized to impose sanctions
upon vexatious and repetitive litigants for frivolous filings.
See Foley v. Fix, 106 F.3d 556, 558 (4th Cir. 1997).
Further
frivolous filings by Emrit may result in this court sanctioning
him, including by ordering a prefiling injunction that limits
his access to the court.
2
Appeal: 14-1354
Doc: 12
Filed: 09/02/2014
Pg: 3 of 3
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?