
    Rodney Victor HARRIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA STATE BAR, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 04-6046.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 16, 2004.
    Decided July 7, 2004.
    Rodney Victor Hands, pi’o se. Paul Kugelman, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Rodney Victor Harris appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000) and denying his post-judgment motion to amend his complaint and reinstate his action. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny Harris’s motions for a review of all circuit court transcripts and motions, for a continuance, for appointment of counsel, and for a review of all circuit court proceedings, and we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Harris v. Virginia State Bar, No. CA-03-566-7 (W.D.Va. filed Aug. 29, 2003; entered Sept. 2, 2003 & Nov. 18, 2003).

In addition, we have reviewed Harris’s response to our order to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned for filing frivolous appeals and why he should not be enjoined from filing further actions in this court until the sanctions are paid. We find his response fails to show cause why sanctions and an injunction should not be imposed. Accordingly, having filed numerous frivolous appeals from district court orders dismissing his civil complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or for seeking monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief, Harris is sanctioned in the amount of $500, payable to the Appellee, and enjoined from filing further actions in this court until the sanctions are paid, and unless a district court judge finds the action is not frivolous. See Foley v. Fix, 106 F.3d 556, 558 (4th Cir.1997). 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.

DISMISSED  