Case Name: Michael J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. Randolph SENGEL; Dietra Y. Trent; Mark R. Warner, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-14
Citations: 115 F. App'x 130
Docket Number: No. 04-2178
Parties: Michael J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. Randolph SENGEL; Dietra Y. Trent; Mark R. Warner, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 130–131

Head Matter:
Michael J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. Randolph SENGEL; Dietra Y. Trent; Mark R. Warner, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-2178.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 9, 2004.
Decided: Dec. 14, 2004.
Michael J. Sindram, Appellant pro se.
Alexander Francuzenko, O’Connel, O’Connell & Sarsfield, Rockville, Maryland; Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael J. Sindram appeals a district court order denying his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b). We have reviewed the district court's order and the record and find the appeal frivolous. Sindram failed to allege any proper grounds for reconsideration. Moreover, on appeal, he failed to specifically challenge the district court's findings in this regard. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. We dis pense 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
We agree with the district court that Sindram has a history of filing vexatious and frivolous cases, many of which resulted in meritless appear. If Sindram continues this conduct, which waste judicial resources, this court will consider ordering sanctions and a pre-filing injunction.