Filed: Nov. 21, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7203 BENJAMIN L. DOYLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MS. FURY, c/o Video Electronic; DONALD GLOBAL, Global Electronic; DETECTIVE SHEARERS; RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-139-5-F) Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 21, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, an
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7203 BENJAMIN L. DOYLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MS. FURY, c/o Video Electronic; DONALD GLOBAL, Global Electronic; DETECTIVE SHEARERS; RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-139-5-F) Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 21, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7203
BENJAMIN L. DOYLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MS. FURY, c/o Video Electronic; DONALD GLOBAL,
Global Electronic; DETECTIVE SHEARERS; RALEIGH
POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-139-5-F)
Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 21, 2003
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin L. Doyle, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin L. Doyle appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A (2000). We have reviewed the record and find
that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
for the reasons stated by the district court. See Doyle v. Fury,
No. CA-03-139-5-F (E.D.N.C. filed July 16, 2003 & entered July 17,
2003). We deny Doyle’s motions for appointment of counsel. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2