Tyrone HURT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George SOROS; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees; Tyrone Hurt, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, et al., Defendant-Appellee; Tyrone Hurt, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The State of New York; Forty-Nine (49) States of the United States of America; The City of Washington, Defendants-Appellees; Tyrone Hurt, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nio Nazis; Secret Service Agency; FBI, Defendants-Appellees; Tyrone Hurt, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, et al., Defendant-Appellee; Tyrone Hurt, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States Supreme Court Justices; United States Supreme Court; United States of America, et al.; United States Court Of Appeals Circuit Judge Litsuy; United States Court of Appeals Circuit Judge Rawlinion; United States Court of Appeals for the Northern District of California, Defendants-Appellees; Tyrone Hurt, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janet E. KING, United States Magistrate Judge; United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Defendants-Appellees

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Tyrone Hurt appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) actions as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is and dismiss the appeals for the reasons stated by the district court. Hurt v. Soros, No. 8:12-cv-03402-RWT (D.Md. Nov. 30, 2012); Hurt v. United States, No. 8:12-cv-03278-PJM (D.Md. Nov. 28, 2012); Hurt v. New York, No. 8:12-cv-03281-PJM (D.Md. Nov. 27, 2012); Hurt v. Nio Nazi’s, No. 8:12-cv-03282-PJM (D. Md. Nov. 28, 2012); Hurt v. United States, No. 8:12-cv-03637-JFM (D.Md. Dec. 21, 2012); Hurt v. U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Nos. 8:12-cv-03643-JFM, 8:12-cv-03647-JFM, 8:12-cv-03646-JFM, 8:12-cv-03644-JFM (D.Md. Dec. 21, 2012); Hurt v. King, No. 8:12-cv-03675-AW (D.Md. Dec. 26, 2012). The motions for appointment of counsel and to amend the notice of appeal are denied. 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.