Case Name: Gary Buterra WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CIRCUIT COURT FOR CITY OF SUFFOLK, Defendant-Appellee; Gary Williams, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Suffolk Circuit Court, Defendant-Appellee, and Commonwealth, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-30
Citations: 536 F. App'x 318
Docket Number: Nos. 13-6716, 13-6718
Parties: Gary Buterra WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CIRCUIT COURT FOR CITY OF SUFFOLK, Defendant-Appellee. Gary Williams, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Suffolk Circuit Court, Defendant-Appellee, and Commonwealth, Defendant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 536
Pages: 318–319

Head Matter:
Gary Buterra WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CIRCUIT COURT FOR CITY OF SUFFOLK, Defendant-Appellee. Gary Williams, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Suffolk Circuit Court, Defendant-Appellee, and Commonwealth, Defendant.
Nos. 13-6716, 13-6718.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 25, 2013.
Decided: July 30, 2013.
Gary Buterra Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Buterra Williams appeals the district court's orders remanding his state prosecutions to state court and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Circuit Court for City of Suffolk, No. 3:11-cv-00125-HEH (E.D.Va. Apr. 29, 2012; Williams v. Suffolk Circuit Court, No. 3:12-cv-00078-HEH (E.D.Va. Dec. 7, 2012 & Apr. 29, 2013)). We also deny Williams' motion for leave to file a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion in the district court. 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.