UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and the 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 to issues raised in informal brief).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012).
Additionally, we have considered Appellee’s request
for sanctions against Emrit. We decline to impose the requested
prefiling injunction or similar “gateway” order at this
juncture. See Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812,
817-18 (4th Cir. 2004) (discussing prefiling injunction and
relevant factors). 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
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