Case Name: Donald Leon SMILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David Stanley PARKER, Former Corrections Officer; David Pirriteli, Jr., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-19
Citations: 96 F. App'x 917
Docket Number: No. 04-6357
Parties: Donald Leon SMILEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. David Stanley PARKER, Former Corrections Officer; David Pirriteli, Jr., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 917–918

Head Matter:
Donald Leon SMILEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. David Stanley PARKER, Former Corrections Officer; David Pirriteli, Jr., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-6357.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2004.
Decided May 19, 2004.
Donald Leon Smiley, Appellant pro se.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Donald L. Smiley seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failing to comply with the terms of a prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Smiley v. Parker, No. CA-04-32-AM (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 5, 2004 & entered Feb. 6, 2004). We also revoke Smiley's status to proceed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2000), because it is clear that the district court has dismissed at least three prior actions for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000). See Smiley v. Nottoway Correctional Ctr., No. CA-00-74AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2000); Smiley v. Virginia, No. CA-00-161-AM (E.D.Va. Mar. 23, 2000); Smiley v. Nottoway Correctional Ctr., No. CA-00-165-AM (E.D.Va. Mar. 20, 2000). 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