
    David Louis WHITEHEAD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC.; Dreamwork Pictures, Inc.; MTV of Viacom, Inc.; Viacom, Inc.; MGM, Inc.; Sony, Inc.; IMG Models, Inc.; IMG World, Inc.; Vogue, Conde’ Nast Publisher Inc.; Vogue Italy, Conde’ Nast Publisher Inc.; NBC-Universal, Inc.; Lionsgate Entertainment, Inc.; Tyler Perry, Inc.; Runway Beauty Magazine; Time Warner; Corcoran College of Arts & Design; Electronic Arts, Inc.; Midway Games; Midway Home Entertainment Company; Warner Bros., Inc.; Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.; International Art Fair Art Basel; 20th Century Fox Film, Inc.; Walt Disney/ABC, Inc.; Macy’s Inc., Defendants-Appellees. David Louis Whitehead, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.; Dreamwork Pictures, Inc.; MTV of Viacom, Inc.; Viacom, Inc.; MGM, Inc.; Sony, Inc.; IMG Models, Inc.; IMG World, Inc.; Vogue, Conde’ Nast Publisher Inc.; Vogue Italy, Conde’ Nast Publisher Inc.; NBC-Universal, Inc.; Lionsgate Entertainment, Inc.; Tyler Perry, Inc.; Runway Beauty Magazine; Time Warner; Corcoran College of Arts & Design; Electronic Arts, Inc.; Midway Games; Midway Home Entertainment Company; Warner Bros., Inc.; Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.; International Art Fair Art Basel; 20th Century Fox Film, Inc.; Walt Disney/ABC, Inc.; Macy’s Inc., Defendants—Appellees. David Louis Whitehead, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.; Dreamwork Pictures, Inc.; MTV of Viacom, Inc.; Viacom, Inc.; MGM, Inc.; Sony, Inc.; IMG Models, Inc.; IMG World, Inc.; Vogue, Conde’ Nast Publisher Inc.; Vogue Italy, Conde’ Nast Publisher Inc.; NBC-Universal, Inc.; Lionsgate Entertainment, Inc.; Tyler Perry, Inc.; Runway Beauty Magazine; Time Warner; Corcoran College of Arts & Design; Electronic Arts, Inc.; Midway Games; Midway Home Entertainment Company; Warner Bros., Inc.; Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.; International Art Fair Art Basel; 20th Century Fox Film, Inc.; Walt Disney/ABC, Inc.; Macy’s Inc., Defendants—Appellees. David Louis Whitehead, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.; Dreamwork Pictures, Inc.; MTV of Viacom, Inc.; Viacom, Inc.; MGM, Inc.; Sony, Inc.; IMG Models, Inc.; IMG World, Inc.; Vogue, Conde’ Nast Publisher Inc.; Vogue Italy, Conde’ Nast Publisher Inc.; NBC-Universal, Inc.; Lionsgate Entertainment, Inc.; Tyler Perry, Inc.; Runway Beauty Magazine; Time Warner; Corcoran College of Arts & Design; Electronic Arts, Incorporated; Midway Games; Midway Home Entertainment Company; Warner Bros., Inc.; Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.; International Art Fair Art Basel; 20th Century Fox Film, Inc.; Walt Disney/ABC, Inc.; Macy’s Inc., Defendants—Appellees.
    Nos. 09-1512, 09-1784, 09-1522, 09-1641.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 27, 2010.
    Decided: Feb. 12, 2010.
    David Louis Whitehead, Appellant Pro Se. Charles David Tobin, Holland & Knight, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Andrew Steven Cabana, Joseph Erwin Schuler, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Reston, Virginia; Justin Florence, O’Melveny & Myers, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Christine Hoeft McCarthy, Barnes & Thornburg, Washington, D.C.; John B. O’Keefe, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schultz, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
    Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   No. 09-1512 dismissed in part, stayed in part; Nos. 09-1522, 09-1641, and 09-1784 affirmed in part, stayed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In Appeal No. 09-1512, David Louis Whitehead seeks to appeal the district court’s April 7, 2009 order: (1) denying his motion to stay the ease; (2) denying his motion to reinstate certain dismissed Defendants and claims; and (3) denying his motion to reconsider the district court’s entry of a prefiling injunction against him. The order from which this appeal was noted has been vacated by the district court’s May 1, 2009 recusal order. We therefore dismiss this appeal as moot as to all Appellees except Midway Games and Midway Home Entertainment. Because Midway Games and Midway Home Entertainment filed a bankruptcy petition, we stay the appeal as to these Appellees. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2006).

Whitehead also appeals from the district court’s May 1, 2009 recusal order (Appeal No. 09-1522), the May 22, 2009 order entering a prefiling injunction against him (Appeal No. 09-1641), and the district court’s May 28, 2009 order granting the Appellees’ motions to dismiss (Appeal No. 09-1784). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm in part for the reasons stated by the district court. Whitehead v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 2009 WL 1565639 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2009; May 22, 2009; May 28, 2009). We stay.these appeals as to Midway Games and Midway Home Entertainment in light of their pending bankruptcy case. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). We also deny Whitehead’s motions to enjoin Justice Sotomayer’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, to consolidate these appeals with other appeals taken to this court, and to strike Lionsgate Entertainment’s informal response brief. 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.

No. 09-1512 DISMISSED IN PART, STAYED IN PART Nos. 09-1522, 09-1641, and 09-1784 AFFIRMED IN PART, STAYED IN PART.  