PER CURIAM:
Allen V. Jaffe appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for extension of time to file responsive pleadings and dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jaffe v. Goodwin, No. CA-03-799 (E.D. Va. Nov. 7, 2003; Jan. 7, 2004). Although we decline to impose sanctions on Jaffe for pursuing this appeal at this time, we caution that further frivolous or malicious filings before this court or in the district court could result in sanctions. We express no opinion as to the motion for sanctions under Fed. R.Civ.P. 11 pending in the district court. Accordingly, we deny all Appellees’ motions for sanctions. We further grant Appellees’ motions to strike “Appellant’s Answer to Appellees’ Reply Brief in Support of Rule 38 Motion for Sanctions.” 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