Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Doyle v. Fury, 03-7203 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7203 Visitors: 7
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7203 BENJAMIN L. DOYLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MS.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
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                            UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer