UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1426

JOSEPHAT MUA; FRANCOISE VANDENPLAS , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. STATE OF MARYLAND; CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE; MARSDEN & SELEDEE , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Ellen L. Hollander , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv - 01435

- ELH )

Submitted : October 19, 2017 Decided: November 9, 2017

Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Josephat Mua, Francoise Vandenplas, Appellants Pro Se. William H. Fields, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Alexis Burrell Rohde, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Thomas V. McCarron, James Olin Spiker, IV, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland; Joel D. Seledee, MARSDEN & SELEDEE, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Josephat Mua and Francoise Vandenplas ( Appellants ) appeal the district court’s orders dismissing their civil claims against the State of Maryland (the State), California Casualty Indemnity Exchange (CCIE), and Marsden & Seledee, LLC (M&S ), and denying what the distric t court appropriately construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. CCIE has filed motion s and a supplemental motion for attorneys’ fees and for a prefiling injunction against Appellants (motions for sanctions), and Appellants have filed motions to exceed the length limitations for their informal brief and their response to CCIE’s motions for sanctions . We grant the motions and affirm the district court’s orders

. First, w e have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s findin gs that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Appellants ’ claims against the State, and that Appellants ’ claims against CCIE and M& S were barred by res judicata

. We also discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to deny Appella nts’ self

- styled motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. See Mua v. Maryland , No. 1:16

- cv - 01435

- ELH (D. Md

. filed Feb. 15, 2017 & entered Feb. 16, 2017; Apr. 4, 2017 ). We agree with CCIE that an order imposing attorneys’ fees and a prefiling injunction against Appellants is warranted. Appellants have filed numerous state and federal actions against CCIE and M&S, as well as several appeals in this court , none of which have been successful. Mor eover, all of Appellants ’ cases against CCIE and M&S share the same recurring theme: Appellants continue to try to relitigate CCIE’s recovery of the insurance benefits it paid to Appellants

. Notably, in California Cas. Indem. Exch.3 v. Mua , 671 F. App’x 1 14 (4th Cir. 2016) (No. 16

- 1584), we informed Appellants that although sanctions against them were unwarranted at that time, we recognized that the appeal was Appellants ’ “second unsuccessful appeal of the same matter,” and we explicitly warned Appellants “that another appeal may subject them to sanctions.” Id. at 115 n.*. Despite this warning, Appellants filed five more appeals (including this appeal) stemming from the same or related litigation

. And as is evidenced by Appellants ’ 222

- page opposition to CCIE’s motions for sanctions , Appellants were afforded ample time to respond to CCIE’s motions

. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s orders, grant Appellants ’ motions to exceed the length limitations for their informal brief and for their response to CCIE’s motion s for sanctions , and grant CCIE’s motion s for sanctions . We order Appellants to reimburse CCIE for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $ 1,522.50

. We also enjoin Appellants from filing any civil appeal, petition, or motion in t his court unless: (i) the aforementioned attorneys’ fees are fully paid to CCIE ; and (ii) a district or circuit judge has certified that the appeal, petition, or motion is not frivolous. Any filing that does not meet these requirements will not be placed on the court’ s docket. 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.

AFFIRMED