Opinion
No. 15-1610 No. 15-1611 No. 15-1612 No. 15-1613 No. 15-1614 No. 15-1615 No. 15-1616
08-31-2015
HEPHZIBAH BATES, a/k/a Hattie Tea Jenkins Bates, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND, Defendant - Appellee HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LISA HICKS THOMAS, Defendant - Appellee HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CBS NEWS, Defendant - Appellee HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VIRGINIA STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant - Appellee HEPHZIBAH BATES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOEY JENKINS, III, Defendant - Appellee HEPHZIBAH BATES, a/k/a Hattie Bates, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LACEY NUNLEY, P.A., Deputy General Counsel, Legal Department, The Federal Bank of Richmond, Defendant - Appellee HEPHZIBAH BATES, a/k/a Hattie Bates, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LACEY NUNLEY, Defendant - Appellee.
Hephzibah Bates, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-00320-REP; 3:14-cv-00164-REP; 3:14-cv-00165-REP; 3:14-cv-00193-REP; 3:14-cv-00322-REP; 3:14-cv-00380-REP; 3:14-cv-00381-REP) Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hephzibah Bates, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Hephzibah Bates appeals the district court's orders dismissing her complaints in her consolidated civil suits as frivolous and entering a prefiling injunction preventing Bates from filing further complaints related to the issues raised in the instant complaints. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bates v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond, 3:14-cv-00320-REP (E.D. Va. May 15, 2015); see also Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Amer., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review of prefiling injunction). 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.
DISMISSED