Case Name: Michael Everrett HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judge Peter J. MESSITTE; Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, Defendants-Appellees; Michael E. Harris, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. Judge Paul Victor Niemeyer; Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-08
Citations: 637 F. App'x 107
Docket Number: Nos. 15-2011, 15-2012
Parties: Michael Everrett HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judge Peter J. MESSITTE; Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, Defendants-Appellees. Michael E. Harris, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. Judge Paul Victor Niemeyer; Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 107–108

Head Matter:
Michael Everrett HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judge Peter J. MESSITTE; Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, Defendants-Appellees. Michael E. Harris, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. Judge Paul Victor Niemeyer; Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 15-2011, 15-2012.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 6, 2016.
Decided: March 8, 2016.
Michael Everrett Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Everrett Harris appeals the district court's orders denying his motion for relief to reopen closed civil cases. Based on our review of the record in these cases and Harris' informal briefs on appeal, we conclude that these appeals are frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). 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.
DISMISSED.