*2 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *4 PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment in four closed civil cases. We have reviewed the record and find that these appeals are frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Town of Cary N.C., No. 5:08-cv-00176-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 2016). We deny all of Davis’ pending motions, including his motions for stay, for appointment of counsel, and for appointment of a guardian ad litem.
Davis has a long history of filing pro se appeals and other actions in this court. He has filed more than 100 such cases since the beginning of 2014. In none of these actions has he yet been granted relief. On January 27, 2017, by order to show cause, Davis was ordered to show why he should not be sanctioned for filing frivolous appeals, motions, and other documents, and why he should not be enjoined from future filings.
Having reviewed Davis’ response to our order, we find his arguments unpersuasive and conclude that a prefiling review system is warranted in light of Davis’ utter disregard for the limited resources of this court. See In re Vincent, 105 F.3d 943, 945-46 (4th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Accordingly, we enjoin Davis from filing any civil appeal in this court unless a district court judge has certified that the appeal is not *5 frivolous. We further enjoin Davis, in any civil matter, from filing any original action, petition, or motion in this court unless this court has certified that the filing is not frivolous. Any document failing to meet these requirements will be returned to Davis without being placed on the court’s docket.
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.
DISMISSED