USCA4 Appeal: 24-2201 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2201

JAMAAL GITTENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. (3:24-cv-00970-FDW-SCR)

Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 3, 2025

Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamaal Gittens, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2201 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jamaal Gittens appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis in his action filed against the Department of Motor Vehicles in

which he sought reinstatement of his driver’s license and monetary damages. ∗ Upon

review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of leave to proceed

in forma pauperis after observing Gittens’ history of abusing the privilege of proceeding in

forma pauperis. See In re Sindram,

(1991) (observing the court’s “duty

to deny in forma pauperis status to those individuals who have abused the system”).

Accordingly, we deny Gittens’ motion to grant relief in the underlying action and affirm

the district court’s order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Gittens v. Dep’t of

Motor Vehicles, No. 3:24-cv-00970-FDW-SCR (W.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 2024). 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 have jurisdiction over this appeal because an order denying “a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order.” Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,

(1950) (per curiam).

2