William Grant, II v. U.S. Dept. of Defense ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2031
WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 18-2122
WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 18-2331
WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 18-2339
WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 18-2428
WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge; Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:18-
cv-00939-LO-TCB; 1:18-cv-01149-LMB-IDD)
Submitted: April 30, 2019 Decided: May 17, 2019
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
2
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lee Grant, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3
PER CURIAM:
William Lee Grant, II, appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his complaints
as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and denying his motions to amend
his complaints. We have reviewed the records and find that these appeals are frivolous.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for the reasons stated by the district court. Grant v.
U.S. Dep’t of Defense, No. 1:18-cv-00939-LO-TCB (E.D. Va. Aug. 20, 2018, Oct. 24,
2018, & Nov. 15, 2018); Grant v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, No. 1:18-cv-01149-LMB-IDD
(E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2018 & Oct. 24, 2018). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in Appeal Nos. 18-2031, 18-2339, and 18-2428. *
In addition, we ordered Grant to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned
for filing frivolous appeals and enjoined from filing any further actions in this court
unless he pays the sanctions and a district court finds that the action is not frivolous. We
find Grant’s response fails to show cause why sanctions and an injunction should not be
imposed. Therefore, Grant is sanctioned $500 for filing frivolous appeals and enjoined
from filing any further actions in this court unless he pays the sanctions and a district
court finds that the action is not frivolous. 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
*
Leave to proceed in forma pauperis has previously been granted in Nos. 18-2122
and 18-2331.
4