Simon Banks v. Circuit Court of Alexandria

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-01309-LO-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000046894]. [16-2277, 17-1081]

Appeal: 16-2277

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/22/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2277

DR. SIMON BANKS, Doctor of Law Former Administrative Law
Judge t/a Judge Banks’ Group,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALEXANDRIA; THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY,
ALEXANDRIA; THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR,
Defendants - Appellees.

No. 17-1081

DR. SIMON BANKS, Doctor of Law Former Administrative Law
Judge t/a Judge Banks’ Group,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALEXANDRIA; THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY,
ALEXANDRIA; THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:16-cv-01309-LO-TCB)

Submitted:

March 13, 2017

Decided:

March 22, 2017

Appeal: 16-2277

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/22/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Simon Banks, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-2277

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/22/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Dr. Simon Banks appeals the
district court’s orders denying his emergency motion for a writ
of mandamus, his motion for reconsideration, and his motions for
injunctive and declaratory relief.
and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed the record

Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court.

Banks v. Circuit Court of

Alexandria, No. 1:16-cv-01309-LO-TCB (E.D. Va. Oct. 17, 2016;
Oct. 24, 2016; filed Dec. 20, 2016, entered December 21, 2016).
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3