USCA4 Appeal: 25-1777 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1777

ROBERT LAUTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH JOHN KATOSKIE, III; KAMALA LANETTI, personally and in her capacity as attorney for the School Board of Va. Beach; GEORGE SCHAEFFER, personally and in his capacity as Clerk for the Circuit Court of Norfolk; CRYSTAL PORTER, personally and in her capacity as Deputy Clerk for the Circuit Court of Norfolk; JOHN VOLLINO, personally and in his capacity as the Deputy Clerk for the Va. Court of Appeals; LESLIE SMITH, personally and in her capacity as former Chief Deputy Clerk for the Va. Supreme Court now just Deputy Clerk of said court; PATRICK FOLEY, personally and in his capacity as Assistant Regional Counsel for the Environmental Protection Agency; ROBERT LOFTON, former Law Clerk of the Virginia Supreme Court and counsel of record for Glaxosmithkline in the matter of Lauter v Glaxosmithkline; GLAXOSMITHKLINE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00649-AWA-RJK)

Submitted: October 16, 2025 Decided: October 20, 2025

Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1777 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Robert Lauter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1777 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/20/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lauter appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to recuse and

dismissing his amended complaint under

(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Lauter’s motion for judicial

notice and affirm the district court’s order. Lauter v. Katoskie, No. 2:23-cv-00649-AWA-

RJK (E.D. Va. May 30, 2025). 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

3