Frederick Banks v. S.A. Sean Langford, et al


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000058625-2] Originating case number: 5:16-hc-02141-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000106015]. Mailed to: Frederick Hamilton Banks. [17-6418]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6418 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/23/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6418 FREDERICK BANKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. S.A. SEAN LANGFORD; S.A. ROBERT WERNER; DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 1615 M Street, NW Washington DC 20419; S.A. TIMOTHY PIVNICHNY; FBI; HON MARK HORNAK; HON JOY FLOWERS CONTI; HON NORA BARRY FISHER; HON THOMAS HARDIMAN; DAVID ANDERCHAK, US Postal Inspector; U.S. POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE; MIKE POMPEO, Director of Central Intelligence; CIA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; AUSA ROBERT CESSAR; AUSA PAUL HULL; AUSA BRENDAN CONWAY; DAVID HICTON, US Attorney, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:16-hc-02141-D) Submitted: June 20, 2017 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick Hamilton Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Decided: June 23, 2017 Appeal: 17-6418 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/23/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 17-6418 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/23/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Frederick Banks appeals the district court’s orders dismissing as frivolous his selfstyled “Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus; and Motion to Disclose Electronic Surveillance under 50 USC 1806(f)[,]” and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and, for the reasons stated by the district court, dismiss the appeal as frivolous. Banks v. Langford, No. 5:16-hc-02141-D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2017 & Mar. 27, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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?