Case Name: Zeenia SATTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William Charles SIMENSON; Katherine Simenson; Pervaiz Irfan Bhatti; John Doe, I; John Doe, II; John Doe, III; John Doe, IV; John Doe, V; John Doe, VI; John Doe, VII; Sarwar Zia; William W. Cummins, Dr.; Fairfax County Police Department; United States State Department Emp; The Pentagon, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-30
Citations: 161 F. App'x 246
Docket Number: No. 05-2013
Parties: Zeenia SATTI, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. William Charles SIMENSON; Katherine Simenson; Pervaiz Irfan Bhatti; John Doe, I; John Doe, II; John Doe, III; John Doe, IV; John Doe, V; John Doe, VI; John Doe, VII; Sarwar Zia; William W. Cummins, Dr.; Fairfax County Police Department; United States State Department Emp; The Pentagon, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 246–247

Head Matter:
Zeenia SATTI, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. William Charles SIMENSON; Katherine Simenson; Pervaiz Irfan Bhatti; John Doe, I; John Doe, II; John Doe, III; John Doe, IV; John Doe, V; John Doe, VI; John Doe, VII; Sarwar Zia; William W. Cummins, Dr.; Fairfax County Police Department; United States State Department Emp; The Pentagon, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-2013.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 28, 2005.
Decided Dec. 30, 2005.
Zeenia Satti, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Zeenia Satti appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Satti v. Simenson, No. CA-05-882 (E.D.Va. Sept. 1, 2005). Furthermore, we deny the five motions, filed in the district court after Satti noted her appeal, that were transferred to this court, as well as the motion filed in this court in which she asked that records of her safety deposit box be frozen. 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