UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1365
MICHAEL A. SCOTT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
US BANK NA; MERS CORPORATION, INC., f/k/a Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ; DLJ MORTGAGE
CAPITAL, INC. ; WILCOX & SAVAGE, P.C.; KAUFMAN & CANOLES,
P.C.; CONRAD M. SHUMADINE; STANLEY G. BARR, JR.; R. JOHAN
CONROD, JR.; CHARLES E. POSTON; WILLIAM M. CLARK; NANCY A.
CLARK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:09-cv-00516-RAJ-DEM)
Submitted: May 18, 2012 Decided: May 29, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley Graves Barr, Jr.,
R. Johan Conrod, Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, Virginia;
Christy Monolo, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia; Michael Scott Stein, STEIN & SMITH, Newport
News, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Scott appeals the district court’s orders
granting the Appellees’ motion to dismiss, dismissing his
complaint for failing to state a claim, denying his motion for
reconsideration and ordering a prefiling injunction. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and affirm
the dismissal for the reasons cited by the district
court. See Scott v. US Bank NA, No. 2:09-cv-00516-RAJ-DEM (E.D.
Va. Sept. 23, 2010; Oct. 14, 2011; Feb. 17, 2012). We review
the court’s decision to impose a prefiling injunction for abuse
of discretion. See Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d
812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). We agree with the district court that
Scott has a history of filing vexatious, repetitious and
frivolous lawsuits that impose a considerable burden on the
court. Accordingly, we conclude that the prefiling injunction
is not overbroad and that the court did not abuse its
discretion.
We affirm the district court’s orders. We grant
Scott’s motion to exceed the length limitations for informal
briefs. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3