Case Name: Bartola J. PACETTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark S. MILLARD, Judge; Alan Carlson; State of California Office of Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees, and Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security Administration; Mary Holt; Kathy Ricci, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-19
Citations: 488 F. App'x 765
Docket Number: No. 12-1828
Parties: Bartola J. PACETTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark S. MILLARD, Judge; Alan Carlson; State of California Office of Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees, and Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security Administration; Mary Holt; Kathy Ricci, Defendants.
Judges: Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 488
Pages: 765–766

Head Matter:
Bartola J. PACETTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark S. MILLARD, Judge; Alan Carlson; State of California Office of Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees, and Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security Administration; Mary Holt; Kathy Ricci, Defendants.
No. 12-1828.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 9, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 19, 2012.
Bartola J. Pacetti, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Foris Simopoulos, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; Julia Bougie Judkins, Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bartola J. Pacetti appeals the district court's orders granting the Appellees' motions to dismiss the claims against them in his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Pacetti v. Millard, No. 1:11-cv-01293-LO-TCB (E.D. Va. May 3, 2012 & filed Apr. 17, 2012, entered Apr. 18, 2012). 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.
AFFIRMED.
Although this appeal was interlocutory when the notice of appeal was filed, we have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court has since entered final judgment. See In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 289 (4th Cir.2005); Equip. Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir.1992).