
    Greg GIVENS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. MAIN STREET FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, Holding company for Main Street Bank; Rebecca Randolph; Richard Lucas; William Criswell; Kevin Gessler; Keith C. Gamble; Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, PLLC; City of Wheeling, West Virginia, individually and collectively, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-2255.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 19, 2011.
    Decided: May 23, 2011.
    Greg Givens, Appellant Pro Se. Keith C. Gamble, Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Nathanial Adam Kuratomi, Jenkins Fenstermaker, PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia; Stephen Mark Fowler, Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KEENAN, Circuit Judge.
    
    Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    
      
       This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
    
   PER CURIAM:

Greg Givens appeals from the district court’s order remanding his complaint to state court, vacating a previous sanctions order against Givens, and denying Givens’ motions for sanctions and appointment of counsel. Givens’ appellate claims regarding the sanctions order against him and his request for appointment of counsel are moot, given that the sanctions order was vacated and the case remanded at Givens’ request. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal.

Turning to Givens’ appeal from the denial of his motion for sanctions against Defendants, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Givens v. Main Street Fin. Servs., No. 5:10-cv-00027-FPS-JSK, 2010 WL 4386725 (N.D.W.Va. Oct. 28, 2010). We deny Givens’ motion to strike Appellees’ 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.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.  