Court Opinion

ID: 9554822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 21:00:52.303052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:50.994257
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6254      Doc: 14         Filed: 08/08/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6254

        In re: INJUNCTION ORDER AS TO MICHAEL S. OWLFEATHER-GORBEY,

                            Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
        at Beckley. Frank W. Volk, District Judge. (5:22-mc-00019)

        Submitted: July 21, 2023                                          Decided: August 8, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael S. Owlfeather-Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6254      Doc: 14         Filed: 08/08/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael S. Owlfeather-Gorbey appeals the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge in part and imposing a pre-filing injunction, which

        was entered in Owlfeather-Gorbey v. Warden, No. 5:21-cv-00367 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 4,

        2022), and refiled in this miscellaneous case pursuant to the terms of the order. Owlfeather-

        Gorbey previously appealed the order in Owlfeather-Gorbey v. Warden, and we affirmed

        the order. See Owlfeather-Gorbey v. Warden, Nos. 22-6169, 22-6170, 2023 WL 4557477

        (4th Cir. July 17, 2023). Owlfeather-Gorbey is not entitled to a second appeal of the same

        order. See United States v. Arlt, 567 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1978). Moreover, having

        considered his arguments in this appeal, we remain convinced of the correctness of our

        prior decision. See Fusaro v. Howard, 19 F.4th 357, 367-68 (4th Cir. 2021). Accordingly,

        we affirm the district court’s order. See In re Injunction Order as to Michael S. Owlfeather-

        Gorbey, No. 5:22-mc-00019 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 4, 2022). 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

                                                     2