Joseph Pirela v. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:17-cv-00541-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000269573]. Mailed to: Joseph Pirela. [18-1145]

Appeal: 18-1145

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/03/2018

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1145

JOSEPH PIRELA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ILEANA
ROS-LEHTINEN;
HOUSE
OF
REPRESENTATIVES;
THE CONGRESS OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WASHINGTON DC;
HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION UNKNOWN BAR OF HOMOSEXUALS, (Sex
Workers Transvestitutes-Prostitutes); ALOYMA SANCHEZ; THOMAS
WILLIAMS; MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE STATE OF FLORIDA
PROCEEDINGS PROSECUTIONS; UNKNOWN BAR OF HOMOSEXUALS;
SEX WORKERS 33 HEALTH CARE BAKER ACT OF JACKSON HOSPITAL;
(4) TRANSVESTITE MATTHEW JOHN Prostitute Homosexual; DAVID
COUNTIN, (1) Client; DON SMITH; DENIS FONSECA; ANGEL MIRANDA;
CARLOS ALVAREZ; CITY OF MIAMI,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:17-cv-00541-D)

Submitted: March 29, 2018

Decided: April 3, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 18-1145

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/03/2018

Pg: 2 of 3

Joseph Pirela, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 18-1145

Doc: 7

Filed: 04/03/2018

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Joseph Pirela appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Pirela v.
Ros-Lehtinen, No. 5:17-cv-00541-D (E.D.N.C. Dec. 14, 2017). 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.

DISMISSED

3