
    John R. DRAYER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY POLITICAL SUB-DIVISION, in its capacity as employers of officers and agents, department, judiciary system, Defendant-Appellee. John R. Drayer, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, and JRS International Estate Management Corporation, Nassau, the Bahamas, Plaintiff, v. Anne Arundel County Political Sub-Division, political sub-division in its capacity as employers of officers, agents, departments, judiciary system; Anne Arundel County Trial Team, in its capacity reviewing proceedings guardianship, M.V. Drayer resulting civil suits/caveates; Anne Arundel County Police Department, individually/corporately in their capacities as police; Agent Berger, social services, individually and in his capacity as social services agent for Anne Arundel County; Anne Arundel County Judicial System, orphans, circuit district courts, individually/corporately in their capacity as officials of judiciary; Mary Y. Drayer, court appointed attorney, individually and corporately in the capacity as officer/courts by judicial appointments/judges; Attorney Bell, Anne Arundel County States Attorneys, action/inaction in capacities of office, officers of the county individually/corporately; Clerk, of Anne Arundel County, recorders, in capacity of office, land records, individually and corporately; Sherif Johnson; Mayor Johnson, Anne Arundel County, in his official capacity as mayor, Annapolis; Other Joe Does, listed/complaints/pleadings; Court of Appeals of Maryland, Docket # 605; Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Docket # 534, Defendants-Appellees. John R. Drayer, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anne Arundel County Political Sub-Division, in its capacity as employers of officers and agents, departments, judiciary system, Defendant-Appellee. John R. Drayer, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, and JRS International Estate Management Corporation, Nassau, the Bahamas, Plaintiff, v. Anne Arundel County Political Sub-Division, political sub-division in its capacity as employers of officers, agents, departments, judiciary system; Anne Arundel County Trial Team, in its capacity reviewing proceedings guardianship, M.V. Drayer resulting civil suits/caveates; Anne Arundel County Police Department, individually/corporately in their capacities as police; Agent Berger, social services, individually and in his capacity as social services agent for Anne Arundel County; Anne Arundel County Judicial System, orphans, circuit district courts, individually/corporately in their capacity as officials of judiciary; Mary V. Drayer, court appointed attorney, individually and corporately in the capacity as officer/courts by judicial appointments/judges; Attorney Bell, Anne Arundel County States Attorneys, action/inaction in capacities of office, officers of the county individually/corporately; Clerk, of Anne Arundel County, recorders, in capacity of office, land records, individually and corporately; Sherif Johnson; Mayor Johnson, Anne Arundel County, in his official capacity as mayor, Annapolis; Other Joe Does, listed/complaints/pleadings; Court of Appeals of Maryland, Docket # 605; Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Docket # 534, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 02-1577, 02-1578, 02-1669, 02-1670.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 20, 2002.
    Decided Aug. 30, 2002.
    John R. Drayer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, John R. Drayer, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions under Fed. R.CivJP. 59 and 60, denying his motions to file belated appeals, denying his motion for preparation of transcripts at government expense, and denying leave to appeal in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the records and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the .motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. See Drayer v. Anne Arundel County, Nos. CA-00-1221-S; CA-01-729-S (D.Md. May 21, 2002). 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.  