
    Carston Carrell WOODSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Carrell Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Carrell Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Carrell Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Carrell Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Carrell Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Carrell Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Carrell Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-1816, No. 17-1817, No. 17-1818, No. 17-1819, No. 17-1821, No. 17-1822, No. 17-1825, No. 17-1826
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 16, 2017
    Decided: January 8, 2018
    Carston Carrell Woodson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carston Carrell Woodson appeals the district court’s orders dismissing with prejudice his complaints under the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80 (2012), for failure to comply, by a specified deadline, with the court’s orders to pay the filing fees and to file amended complaints in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Woodson v. United States, Nos. 3:17-cv-00185-REP; . 3:17-cv-00186-REP; 3:17-cv-00187-REP; 3:17-cv-00188-REP; 3:17-cv-00189-REP; 3:17-cv-00190-REP; 3:17-cv-00191-REP; 3:17-cv-00192-REP (E.D. Va., July 11, 2017). We grant Woodson leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and deny his motions to deconsolidate his eight nearly identical cases, his motions for default judgment, and his motions to vacate final district court order, 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,

AFFIRMED  