Bartola Pacetti v. Mark Millard

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998910071-2]. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-01293-LO-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998983634]. Mailed to: Bartola Pacetti. [12-1828]

Appeal: 12-1828

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/19/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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
Administration; MARY HOLT; KATHY RICCI,

Social

Security

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,

Appeal: 12-1828

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/19/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

HORVATH & JUDKINS, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-1828

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/19/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

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. *
no reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and find

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,
facts

2012).

and

materials

legal
before

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

because

presented

would

not

the

in

the

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