USCA4 Appeal: 24-1214 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1214 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Taras N. Raggio, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1214 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 3 of 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