UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2293

MICHAEL J. SINDRAM, 

Plaintiff – Appellant, 

v. 

PATRICIA L. HARRINGTON; DOUGLAS B. ROBELEN, State Actor; 

HON. GERALD BRUCE LEE; PHYLLIS T. WALTON; LISA GRAYSON; U.S. 

MARSHAL SERVICE; JOHN HACKMAN, 

Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:09-cv-01082-GBL-IDD) 

Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion. 

Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Michael J. Sindram appeals the district court’s 

orders: (1) denying his fourth motion seeking leave to appeal in 

forma pauperis; (2) denying his motion seeking the recusal of 

the district court judge under Fed. R. Civ. P. 63; (3) denying 

his motion for clarification and modification; and (4) imposing 

a pre-filing injunction and striking Sindram’s Amended Verified 

Complaint and Request for Injunctive Relief. 

With respect to Sindram’s effort to re-litigate the 

legality of the district court’s order imposing a pre-filing 

injunction, this court addressed his claims in a prior appeal,

concluding that the court erred in imposing the pre-filing 

injunction sua sponte, vacating its order imposing the 

injunction, striking Sindram’s amended complaint and request for 

injunctive relief, and remanding the case for further 

proceedings. See Sindram v. Harrington, No. 10-2073, 2010 WL 

5392910 (4th Cir. Dec. 22, 2010). Accordingly, we conclude that 

Sindram’s challenge is barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine 

and that none of the exceptions to the doctrine apply. 

See United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999) 

(discussing doctrine and exceptions thereto). 

With respect to the district court’s order denying 

Sindram’s fourth motion seeking leave to appeal in forma 

pauperis, although the order is appealable, Sindram’s appellate 
3

brief alleges no relevant claim of error by the district court. 

We therefore conclude that Sindram has forfeited appellate 

review of this order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Wahi v. Charleston 

Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. 

denied, 130 S. Ct. 1140 (2010); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 

178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). 

Finally, with respect to the district court’s orders 

denying Sindram’s motions for recusal and clarification, this 

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). These orders 

are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or 

collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of these 

orders for lack of jurisdiction. 

We therefore grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

on appeal and affirm in part and dismiss in part. 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. 

AFFIRMED IN PART,

DISMISSED IN PART