Filed: Mar. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2356 JOSEPH PIRELA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANGEL JOSE MIRANDA; LYDIA NICOLE ROBERTS; ETHIEL CALDERON, 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. (5:15-cv-00607-D) Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2356 JOSEPH PIRELA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANGEL JOSE MIRANDA; LYDIA NICOLE ROBERTS; ETHIEL CALDERON, 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. (5:15-cv-00607-D) Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2356
JOSEPH PIRELA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANGEL JOSE MIRANDA; LYDIA NICOLE ROBERTS; ETHIEL CALDERON,
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. (5:15-cv-00607-D)
Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Pirela, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Pirela appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint as frivolous. Pirela
previously filed an untimely notice of appeal from this same
district court order, which we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
He now has filed a second notice of appeal. The second notice of
appeal is similarly untimely. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. 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
2