Court Opinion

ID: 9911434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 21:00:46.858066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:59.177963
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2082      Doc: 8        Filed: 12/18/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2082

        MARK DOWNEY,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES           DEPARTMENT           OF   JUSTICE;        UNITED   STATES
        ATTORNEY,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00233-LMB-IDD)

        Submitted: December 14, 2023                                 Decided: December 18, 2023

        Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mark Downey, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2082         Doc: 8      Filed: 12/18/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Mark Downey appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to quash a

        prefiling injunction entered against him in 2019. The district court denied the motion

        because Downey, in violation of the prefiling injunction, failed to obtain leave to file his

        motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

        the district court’s order. Downey v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., No. 1:19-cv-00233-LMB-IDD

        (E.D. Va. Sept. 27, 2023). In addition, we deny Downey’s motions, filed in this court, to

        quash the prefiling injunction. We deny as moot the motion to expedite decision.

               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