UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1327

TIMOTHY BRYAN LARRIMORE,

Plaintiff -Appellant,

v.

JACK HOOKS, JR., Judge; CHRIS BATTEN, Sheriff,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-6244

TIMOTHY BRYAN LARRIMORE,

Plaintiff -Appellant,

v.

JACK HOOKS, JR., Judge; CHRIS BATTEN, Sheriff; R. C. SOLES,

JR., Senator,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,

District Judge. (7:07-cv-00209-D)

Submitted: July 18, 2008 Decided: August 5, 2008 
-2-

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

No. 08-1327 vacated and remanded; No. 08-6244 affirmed as modified

by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Bryan Larrimore, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-3-

PER CURIAM:

In appeal No. 08-6244, Larrimore appeals from the

district court’s order dismissing his complaint as frivolous under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). Larrimore had alleged that a

state court judge, the sheriff, and a senator, and “all the lawyers

and judges” were “all members of a terrist (sic) organization

called the Masonic Lodge,” and they were conspiring to prevent him

from being able to file papers in the county courthouse. He

further alleged that the local government was corrupt, and the

judge, sheriff, senator, and all lawyers were stealing tax money

and allowing a drug trafficking ring to operate.

The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous,

stating that it contained only delusional and nonsensical

allegations, or lacked factual support. Because Larrimore may be

able to particularize his complaint to state non-frivolous claims

arising from the events described in the complaint, see Coleman v.

Peyton, 340 F.2d 603, 604 (4th Cir. 1965), we modify the district

court’s order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice

and affirm that disposition.

In appeal No. 08-1327, Larrimore appeals from the

district court’s order imposing sanctions and a prefiling

injunction. We review the imposition of a prefiling injunction for

abuse of discretion. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d

812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). Federal courts may issue prefiling
-4-

injunctions when vexatious conduct hinders the court from

fulfilling its constitutional duty. Id.; Procup v. Strickland, 792

F.2d 1069, 1073-74 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc). Before enjoining

the filing of further actions, however, the district court must

afford the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard. Cromer,

390 F.3d at 819; In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 446 (3d Cir. 1982).

Here, the district court sua sponte issued the injunction. Because

the court imposed the injunction without affording Larrimore an

opportunity to be heard, we vacate the order and remand for further

proceedings.

In conclusion, we affirm the order dismissing Larrimore’s

complaint, as modified to reflect that the dismissal is without

prejudice, and we vacate the sanctions and prefiling injunction

order and remand for further proceedings. We deny Larrimore’s

motion to transfer all his cases to this court, and 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.

No. 08-1327 VACATED AND REMANDED

No. 08-6244 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED