Taras N. Raggio, Phd v. SHERIFF CHRIS DAVIS, Pamlico County Sheriffs Office

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1214
TARAS N. RAGGIO, PHD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF CHRIS DAVIS, Pamlico County Sheriffs Office; SHERIFF ALFRED
CHIP HUGHES, Craven County Sheriffs Office; SHERIFF ENNIS WRIGHT,
Cumberland County Sheriffs Office; KENNY HEATH; CRYSTAL HEATH;
GEORGE T. PFANNESTEIL; SANDRA REYES; EDDIE REYES; TODD
CAMPLIN; HOLLY CAMPLIN; JAMES THOMAS; RHONDA THOMAS; SETH
CLARK; EDWARD CLARK; KURK REIL; SHELLY REIL; EDUARDO ROJAS;
JENNIFER BEATRIZ-AYALA ROJAS; DONNA COX; JOHN COX; ORAL
FRANKLIN WOODS; THOMAS OTT; LINDSAY MACK; CLINT MACK;
MICHAEL FUSCHETTI; TARA VISCUSO; MISTY MULLINS; GARY
MULLINS; MARK WALDRON; COL. WILLIAM L. WEBB, III; MRS. KAY
WEBB; GLENN LORE; ROSEMARY LORE; WEST END FIRE AND RESCUE;
SEVEN LAKES FIRE AND RESCUE; BRITTANY S. PASCHAL; AMANDA
BULLOCK; JEFFREY SCOTT WILSON, CAPO Builders; OFFICE OF THE
CLERK; MAGISTRATE RUSSELL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00430-LCB-LPA)
Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 29, 2024
Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Taras N. Raggio, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Taras N. Raggio appeals the district court’s orders accepting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and dismissing Raggio’s civil complaint because her claims were wholly
frivolous and inadequate to confer subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S.
83, 89 (1998). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Raggio v. Davis, No.
1:23-cv-00430-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C. Feb. 28, 2024; Mar. 5, 2024). 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

-- 3 of 3 --