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

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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