Michael Scott v. US Bank NA, No. 12-1365 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1365 MICHAEL A. SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. US BANK NA; MERS CORPORATION, INC., f/k/a Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ; DLJ CAPITAL, INC. ; WILCOX & SAVAGE, P.C.; KAUFMAN & P.C.; CONRAD M. SHUMADINE; STANLEY G. BARR, JR.; CONROD, JR.; CHARLES E. POSTON; WILLIAM M. CLARK; CLARK, Mortgage MORTGAGE CANOLES, R. JOHAN NANCY A. Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00516-RAJ-DEM) Submitted: May 18, 2012 Decided: May 29, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley Graves Barr, Jr., R. Johan Conrod, Jr., KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, Virginia; Christy Monolo, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Michael Scott Stein, STEIN & SMITH, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael A. Scott appeals the district court s orders granting the Appellees motion to dismiss, dismissing his complaint for failing to state a claim, denying his motion for reconsideration and ordering a prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and the district court s orders and affirm the dismissal court. for the reasons cited by the district See Scott v. US Bank NA, No. 2:09-cv-00516-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va. Sept. 23, 2010; Oct. 14, 2011; Feb. 17, 2012). We review the court s decision to impose a prefiling injunction for abuse of discretion. See Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). Scott has frivolous court. is a history lawsuits We agree with the district court that of that filing impose a vexatious, repetitious considerable burden and on the Accordingly, we conclude that the prefiling injunction not overbroad and that the court did not abuse its discretion. We affirm the district court s orders. We grant Scott s motion to exceed the length limitations for informal briefs. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.