
    Simon BANKS, t/a Judge Banks’ Group, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Charles C. PAK, Detective; Cynthia Frank; James Richardson, Detective; John Griffith; James W. Henderson, Defendants—Appellees, and William D. Euille, Mayor; Virginia State Bar; Elliott J. Casey, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney; S. Randolph Sengel, Commonwealth Attorney, Defendants; Simon Banks, t/a Judge Banks’ Group, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Elliott J. Casey, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney; S. Randolph Sengel, Commonwealth Attorney, Defendants—Appellees, and Charles C. Pak, Detective; Cynthia Frank; William D. Euille, Mayor; Virginia State Bar; James Richardson, Detective; John Griffith; James W. Henderson, Defendants. Simon Banks, t/a Judge Banks’ Group, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Charles C. Pak, Detective; John Griffith; James W. Henderson, Defendants—Appellees, and Cynthia Frank; William D. Euille, Mayor; Virginia State Bar; James Richardson, Detective; Elliott J. Casey, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney; S. Randolph Sengel, Commonwealth Attorney, Defendants.
    No. 04-7830, 04-7842, 05-6357.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 14, 2005.
    Decided: July 26, 2005.
    Simon Banks, Appellant pro se. Jonathan Donald Westreich, Alexandria, Virginia; Alexander Francuzenko, O’Connell, O’Connell & Sarsfield, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Simon Banks appeals district court orders denying his motion for injunctive relief, granting the motion to dismiss two Defendants on the basis of prosecutorial immunity and dismissing his complaint for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and the district court orders and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Banks v. Pak, No. CA-04-625 (E.D. Va., filed Sept. 2, 2004; entered Sept. 7, 2004; filed Oct. 18, 2004; entered Oct. 19, 2004; Feb. 2, 2005). We deny Banks’ motion to file a supplemental brief in No. 05-6357. 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  