Bartola Pacetti v. Mark Millard , 488 F. App'x 765 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-1828
    BARTOLA J. PACETTI,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    MARK S. MILLARD, Judge; ALAN CARLSON; STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Defendants – Appellees,
    and
    MICHAEL   J.   ASTRUE,  Commissioner    of         Social    Security
    Administration; MARY HOLT; KATHY RICCI,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
    Judge. (1:11-cv-01293-LO-TCB)
    Submitted:      November 9, 2012              Decided:   November 19, 2012
    Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bartola   J. Pacetti,  Appellant Pro  Se.    Nicholas  Foris
    Simopoulos, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
    Richmond, Virginia; Julia Bougie Judkins, BANCROFT, MCGAVIN,
    HORVATH & JUDKINS, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Bartola J. Pacetti appeals the district court’s orders
    granting the Appellees’ motions to dismiss the claims against
    them in his civil action. *         We have reviewed the record and find
    no reversible error.            Accordingly, although we grant leave to
    proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by
    the district court.          See Pacetti v. Millard, No. 1:11-cv-01293-
    LO-TCB (E.D. Va. May 3, 2012 & filed Apr. 17, 2012, entered
    Apr. 18,    2012).      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
    *
    Although this appeal was interlocutory when the notice of
    appeal was filed, we have jurisdiction over the appeal because
    the district court has since entered final judgment. See In re
    Bryson, 
    406 F.3d 284
    , 289 (4th Cir. 2005); Equip. Fin. Grp.,
    Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 
    973 F.2d 345
    , 347-48 (4th
    Cir. 1992).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-1828

Citation Numbers: 488 F. App'x 765

Judges: Davis, Keenan, Per Curiam, Thacker

Filed Date: 11/19/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023