USA 100 v. COUNTY OF ARLINGTON VIRGINIA 5000 28 CA 12 CA 42 2019 14 2019 (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Anton PURISIMA, Plaintiff - Appellant, United States of America, “The USA”; Does 1 – 100, Collectively “Plaintiffs”, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF ARLINGTON VIRGINIA, “Collectively Defendants”; Hudson County, New Jersey, “Collectively Defendants”; City of New York, “City”, “Collectively Defendants”; New York County Registrar, “Collectively Defendants”; Democratic Party, “Democrats,” “Democrat,” Political Party, “Collectively Defendants”; Does 1-5000, “Collectively Defendants”; Adam B. Schiff, “28 for CA”, “Collectively Defendants”; Nancy Pelosi, “12 for CA”, “Collectively Defendants”; 42 Democratic Party Congress Members as of 2019, “Collectively Defendants”; Mark R. Warner; Bob Menendez, “Collectively Defendants”; Cory Booker, “Collectively Defendants”; Dianne Feinstein, “Collectively Defendants”; Kamala D. Harris, Democratic; Chuck Schumer, “Collectively Defendants”; Kirsten Gillibrand, “Collectively Defendants”, Democratic; Fourteen (14) U.S. Senators of Democratic Party as of 2019, “Collectively Defendants,” Defendants - Appellees.

No. 20-1111

Decided: September 28, 2020

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Anton Purisima, Appellant Pro Se.

Anton Purisima appeals the district court's orders dismissing his amended civil complaint for failure to state a claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and denying his motions for reconsideration.^* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Purisima v. Cnty. of Arlington Va., No. 1:20-cv-00065-LO-JFA (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 24, 2020 & entered Jan. 27, 2020; filed & entered Feb. 5, 2020; filed & entered Mar. 4, 2020). 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE. Although Purisima did not file a separate notice of appeal from the court's March 4, 2020, order denying his second motion for reconsideration, we conclude that we have jurisdiction to review that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), (2), (4), (7)(A)(ii); Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992) (holding that informal brief may act as functional equivalent of notice of appeal); United States v. Little, 392 F.3d 671, 680 (4th Cir. 2004) (discussing separate document rule).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law