Opinion
21-1461
11-10-2021
RYAN ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JASON W. POLLARD, Defendant-Appellee.
Ryan Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 9, 2021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00033-DJN)
Ryan Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before FLOYD, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM 1
Ryan Anderson appeals the district court's orders dismissing his civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Anderson v. Pollard, No. 3:21-cv-00033-DJN (E.D. Va. Apr. 21, 2021; Mar. 24, 2021); see also Cromer v. Kraft Foods N.A., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004) (noting that federal courts have "authority to limit access to the courts by vexatious and repetitive litigants"); Anderson v. Pollard, ___ Fed.Appx. ____, 2021 WL 3503418, at *2-3 (10th Cir. Aug. 10, 2021) (affirming dismissal of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) based on claim preclusion); Anderson v. Pollard, 775 Fed.Appx. 967 (10th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)); Anderson v. Pollard, 774 Fed.Appx. 820 (4th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of action as frivolous, vexatious, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Anderson v. Pollard, No. 3:20-cv-00489-DJN (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2020) (dismissing action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). 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.
We have construed Anderson's informal brief on appeal as a timely notice of appeal of the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992); Clark v. Cartledge, 829 F.3d 303, 305 (4th Cir. 2016).
AFFIRMED. 2