Filed: Dec. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6923 BENJAMIN L. DOYLE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JUDGE HENDING; HALIFAX COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; HALIFAX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-ct-03081-FL) Submitted: December 3, 2015 Decided: December 14, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and MOT
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6923 BENJAMIN L. DOYLE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JUDGE HENDING; HALIFAX COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; HALIFAX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-ct-03081-FL) Submitted: December 3, 2015 Decided: December 14, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6923
BENJAMIN L. DOYLE, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JUDGE HENDING; HALIFAX COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE;
HALIFAX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-ct-03081-FL)
Submitted: December 3, 2015 Decided: December 14, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin L. Doyle, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin L. Doyle, Sr., appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Doyle v. Hending, No. 5:15-ct-03081-FL (E.D.N.C. May 10, 2015).
We deny Doyle’s motion to be heard and his motions for a
complete and full discovery of all evidence. 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
2