The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
25-1777•Robert Lauter v. Joseph John Katoskie, Iii
25-1777Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 20, 2025
UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Robert Lauter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lauter appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to recuse and
dismissing his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.