Christopher Wills v. Charles Rosenberg

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-01317-LMB-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998978598]. Mailed to: Christopher Wills. [12-6690]

Appeal: 12-6690

Doc: 25

Filed: 11/09/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6690

CHRISTOPHER A. WILLS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CHARLES P. ROSENBERG; DONNA MARIE STEPHENSON; JOHN ROBERT
STONE; CINDY LUNDBERG; MICHAEL FEIGHTNER; NATHANIEL J.
MCFADDEN; REGINALD A. JOHNSON; MAURICE SIMMONS; JAMES
BLACK; MR. HAMED; MR. ASIB; HELLEN FAYEH,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-01317-LMB-JFA)

Submitted:

October 30, 2012

Decided:

November 9, 2012

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher A. Wills, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan,
Jr., Lauren Anne Wetzler, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Alexandria,
Virginia;
Benjamin
Rogers
Jacewicz,
COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6690

Doc: 25

Filed: 11/09/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Christopher

A.

appeals *

Wills

the

district

court’s

orders dismissing his civil action asserting claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and denying his
motion for reconsideration.
find no reversible error.
for

the

reasons

stated

We have reviewed the record and
Accordingly, we affirm substantially

by

the

district

court.

Wills

v.

Rosenberg, No. 1:11-cv-01317-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2012 &
Feb. 2, 2012).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

*

Wills was required to file his notice of appeal by Monday,
April 9, 2012. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(C); Fed. R. App. P.
26(a)(1)(C). While the County Defendants argue that this appeal
is untimely, we conclude that the record adequately demonstrates
timely filing.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988).

2