UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DARRELL W. SAMUEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America; GEORGE BUSH, former President of the USA; RONALD REAGAN, former President of the USA; OLIVER L.

NORTH, former member of the Marine Corps; JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States; RICHARD THORNBURGH, former Attorney General of the No. 99-7681 United States; EDWIN A. MEESE, III, former Attorney General of the United States; WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH, sued as the Estate of William French Smith, former Attorney General; GEORGE J. TENET, Director of CIA; JOHN DEUTCH, former Director of CIA; ROBERT GATES, former Director of CIA; WILLIAM CASEY, sued as the Estate of William Casey, former Director of CIA, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-99-2950) Submitted: May 31, 2000 Decided: June 20, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Darrell W. Samuel, Appellant Pro Se. Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Darrell W. Samuel appeals the district court's dismissal of his action under the civil remedies provision of the Racketeering Influ- enced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.A. § 1964(c) (West Supp. 2000). In his complaint, Samuel sought relief against President Clinton and past presidents Bush and Reagan; Oliver North; Janet Reno and three past Attorneys General; and present and past directors of the Central Intelligence Agency. Seeking to proceed in a class action, Samuel asserted that the defendants conspired to allow the massive importation and distribution of cocaine to fund the Nica- raguan Contras. He claimed that this conspiracy resulted in a wave of cocaine addicts, drug dealers, and drug-related crime, a high rate of imprisonment in the class of minorities he sought to represent, and other economic impact. Samuel requested two billion dollars in dam- ages for the class, trebled pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1964(c).

A pro se prisoner cannot represent others in a class action. Oxen- dine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). In addition, summary dismissal was appropriate for Samuel's complaint as there is no direct, causal connection between the activity that Samuel attri- butes to defendants and any injury to him. Holmes v. Securities Inves- tor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268-69 (1992) (holding proximate causation of injury by RICO violation necessary to support civil claim). Therefore, we affirm the district court's summary dismissal of Samuel's complaint, as well as the sanctions imposed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1932 (West Supp. 2000). 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.

AFFIRMED