Case ID: f-appx_115/html/0130-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. Randolph SENGEL; Dietra Y. Trent; Mark R. Warner, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-2178.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 9, 2004.
    Decided: Dec. 14, 2004.
    Michael J. Sindram, Appellant pro se.
    Alexander Francuzenko, O’Connel, O’Connell & Sarsfield, Rockville, Maryland; Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Michael J. Sindram appeals a district court order denying his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b). We have reviewed the district court’s order and the record and find the appeal frivolous. Sindram failed to allege any proper grounds for reconsideration. Moreover, on appeal, he failed to specifically challenge the district court’s findings in this regard. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately-presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED 
      
       We agree with the district court that Sindram has a history of filing vexatious and frivolous cases, many of which resulted in meritless appear. If Sindram continues this conduct, which waste judicial resources, this court will consider ordering sanctions and a pre-filing injunction.