Case Name: Christopher A. WILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles P. ROSENBERG; Donna Marie Stephenson; John Robert Stone; Cindy Lundberg; Michael Feightner; Nathaniel J. McFadden; Reginald A. Johnson; Maurice Simmons; James Black; Mr. Hamed; Mr. Asib; Hellen Fayeh, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-09
Citations: 487 F. App'x 821
Docket Number: No. 12-6690
Parties: Christopher A. WILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles P. ROSENBERG; Donna Marie Stephenson; John Robert Stone; Cindy Lundberg; Michael Feightner; Nathaniel J. McFadden; Reginald A. Johnson; Maurice Simmons; James Black; Mr. Hamed; Mr. Asib; Hellen Fayeh, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 487
Pages: 821–822

Head Matter:
Christopher A. WILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles P. ROSENBERG; Donna Marie Stephenson; John Robert Stone; Cindy Lundberg; Michael Feightner; Nathaniel J. McFadden; Reginald A. Johnson; Maurice Simmons; James Black; Mr. Hamed; Mr. Asib; Hellen Fayeh, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-6690.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 30, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 9, 2012.
Christopher A. Wills, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Lauren Anne Wetzler, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia; Benjamin Rogers Jacewicz, County Attorney’s Office, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher A. Wills appeals the district court's orders dismissing his civil ac tion asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Wills v. Rosenberg, No. 1:11-cv-01317-LMB-JFA, 2012 WL 113676 (E.D.Va. Jan. 13, 2012 & Feb. 2, 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.
AFFIRMED.
Wills was required to file his notice of appeal by Monday, April 9, 2012. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(C); Fed. R.App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). While the County Defendants argue that this appeal is untimely, we conclude that the record adequately demonstrates timely filing. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).