Court Opinion

ID: 1012134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:39:41.802897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:01.549536
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
 

  Frank A. Balear appeals the district court’s order imposing monetary sanctions against him. Balear has failed to properly preserve the issue of sanctions for appeal by failing to allege any error by the district court in his informal brief.
  
   See
  
  4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
  
   See Balcar v. Bell &
  
  Assoc., 295 F.Supp.2d 635, No. CA-02-2-5, 2003 WL 22955703 (N.D.W.Va. Apr. 4, 2003). In addition, we have reviewed Balcar’s response to our order to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned for filing frivolous appeals and enjoined from filing further actions in this court unless he pays the sanctions and a district court finds that the action is not frivolous. We find his response fails to show cause why sanctions and an injunction should not be imposed. We therefore grant Appellees’ motions for sanctions. Accordingly, having filed numerous frivolous appeals in this court from district court orders dismissing his civil complaints as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, Balear is sanctioned $500 for filing frivolous appeals and enjoined from filing further actions in this court unless he pays the sanction and a district court judge finds that the appeal is not frivolous. 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