Filed: Nov. 07, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7023 JUAN COSTILLA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FRANK A. CASSIANO, JR.; MARIO PERZE; ANN H. BARNHILL, 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. (5:11-ct-03259-D) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7023 JUAN COSTILLA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FRANK A. CASSIANO, JR.; MARIO PERZE; ANN H. BARNHILL, 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. (5:11-ct-03259-D) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7023 JUAN COSTILLA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FRANK A. CASSIANO, JR.; MARIO PERZE; ANN H. BARNHILL, 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. (5:11-ct-03259-D) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Costilla, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juan Costilla appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). 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. Costilla v. Cassiano, No. 5:11-ct-03259-D (E.D.N.C. June 1, 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. DISMISSED 2
