Daniel Fitzgerald v. Virginia Commonwealth, No. 18-2007 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2007 DANIEL W. FITZGERALD, The United States, ex relatione daniel wayne, Sui Juris, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH; FRANK BUTTERY, a person; JUSTIN MICHAEL WEINEKE, a person; THOMAS WILLIAM GOW, a person; LAWRENCE D. BLACK, a person; MICHAEL L. CHAPMAN, a person; MAJ. MIKE MANNING, a person; JIM PLOWMAN, a person; JASON GRACE, a person; DEPUTY TB NELSON 3123, a person; DEPUTY M. LOTZ 2799, a person; EDWIN C. ROESSLER, a person; STACEY A. KINCAID, a person; DEAN S. WORCESTER, a person; RICHARD BANKS, a person; GARY CLEMMENS, a person; FERNANDO GALINDA, a person; OFFICER MANZANO 4324, a person; TAMMY HUMMER-DINTERMAN, a person; FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE OFFICER CHUNG, a person; FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE OFFICER BAILEY, a person; OFFICER SORTO 4325, a person; DEBORAH C. WELSH, a person; JEANETTE A. IRBY, a person; CLAUDE J. BEHELER, a person; JEFFREY MANGENO, a person, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00758-AJT-TCB) Submitted: December 18, 2018 Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Decided: December 20, 2018 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel W. Fitzgerald, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Francis Izzo, LAW OFFICES OF MARK R. DYCIO, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee Jeffrey Mangeno. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Daniel W. Fitzgerald appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Fitzgerald v. Virginia, No. 1:18-cv-00758-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2018). 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. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.