Bartola Pacetti v. Michael Astrue

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998927627-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998934258-2]. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-01293-LO-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999013074]. Mailed to: Bartola Pacetti. [12-2057]

Appeal: 12-2057

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/02/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2057

BARTOLA J. PACETTI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL
J.
ASTRUE,
Commissioner
Administration; MARY HOLT,

of

Social

Security

Defendants – Appellees,
and
MARK S. MILLARD, Judge; ALAN CARLSON; STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL; 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:

December 13, 2012

Decided: January 2, 2013

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bartola J. Pacetti, Appellant Pro Se.
Julie Ann Edelstein,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Appeal: 12-2057

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/02/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-2057

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/02/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bartola J. Pacetti appeals the district court’s orders
granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismissing his civil
action.
error.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis,
court.

we

affirm

for

the

reasons

stated

by

the

district

See Pacetti v. Millard, No. 1:11-cv-01293-LO-TCB (E.D.

Va. Mar. 27, 2012 & filed Aug. 22, 2012, entered Aug. 23, 2012).
We deny Pacetti’s motion for a transcript at government expense.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3