
    Josephat MUA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The O’NEAL LAW FIRM, LLP; Thatcher Law Firm; Sullivan, Talbott & Batt; Bryan Chapman; RMA & Associates, LLC; Robert Elmer Cappell; Hardnett & Associates; Bradford Associates; Pessin Katz Law, P.A.; Maryland State Education Association; Association of Supervisory & Administrative School; Maryland State Department of Education; C. Sukari Hardnett, LLC., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-2025
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 22, 2018
    Decided: February 26, 2018
    Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se. Jodi V. Terranova, WILSON ELSER, Washington, D.C.; Lindsay A. Freedman, Linda Hitt Thatcher, THATCHER LAW FIRM, Greenbelt, Maryland; David George Mul-quin, BRAULT & GRAHAM, LLC, Rock-ville, ^Maryland; Bryan Chapman, Washington, D.C.; Raouf Muhammad Abdullah, ABDULLAH & ASSOCIATES LLC, Upper Malboro, Maryland; Robert Elmer Cappell, ROBERT CAPPELL ATTORNEY AT LAW, Bowie, Maryland; Andrew G. Scott, Leslie Robert Stellman, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland; Christopher Mark Feldenzer, SEROTTE ROCKMAN & WESTCOTT, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Nathaniel David Johnson, JOHNSON LAW GROUP LLC, White Plains, Maryland; William H. Fields, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Charlene Sukari Hardnett, LAW OFFICE OF C. SUKARI HARDNETT, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Josephat Mua appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled motion to reopen his civil case against several defendants, as well as its order denying Mua’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Mua also seeks to challenge the district court’s decision to return to Mua a motion for reconsideration filed after the district court entered the above-referenced orders. Mua has filed with this court motions to proceed in forma pauperis, to exceed the length limitations for his informal brief, and to file amended and supplemental informal briefs. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the pending motions and affirm the district court’s orders. See Mua v. The O’Neal Law Firm, LLP, No. 8:14-cv-02334-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2017; filed Aug. 1, 2017 & entered Aug. 2, 2017). 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 
      
       We discern no reversible error in the district court’s refusal to entertain Mua’s motion for reconsideration.
     