Case Name: Robert E. GREEN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; The Baltimore City Police Department; Sod Decoy Squad; Carl Stambaugh, Officer; Other Members of the Baltimore Police Department, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-30
Citations: 11 F. App'x 206
Docket Number: No. 00-2330
Parties: Robert E. GREEN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; The Baltimore City Police Department; Sod Decoy Squad; Carl Stambaugh, Officer; Other Members of the Baltimore Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 206–207

Head Matter:
Robert E. GREEN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; The Baltimore City Police Department; Sod Decoy Squad; Carl Stambaugh, Officer; Other Members of the Baltimore Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-2330.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2001.
Decided April 30, 2001.
Robert E. Green, Sr., pro se. Gary Charles May, Baltimore City Police Department; William Rowe Phelan, Jr., Office of the City Solicitor; Eileen Antoinette Carpenter, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert E. Green, Sr., appeals the district court's order advising him that additional repetitive filings relevant to his closed cases would be discarded without a response. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Green v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, No. CA-99-2941-MJG (D.Md. Oct. 2, 2000). We deny Green's motion to proceed on formal briefs and for appointment of counsel. We note that additional filings by Green regarding this matter, other than a rehearing petition or a petition for writ of certiorari, may result in the imposition of sanctions. 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.
AFFIRMED.