Filed: Apr. 16, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2012 BRYAN O’NEAL BENSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. S. YU, Officer; W. RABOURN, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00364-BR) Submitted: March 31, 2008 Decided: April 16, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryan O’Neal
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2012 BRYAN O’NEAL BENSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. S. YU, Officer; W. RABOURN, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00364-BR) Submitted: March 31, 2008 Decided: April 16, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryan O’Neal ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2012 BRYAN O’NEAL BENSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. S. YU, Officer; W. RABOURN, Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00364-BR) Submitted: March 31, 2008 Decided: April 16, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryan O’Neal Benson, Appellant Pro Se. Dorothy K. Leapley, CITY OF RALEIGH, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bryan O’Neal Benson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellees’ motion to dismiss and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Benson v. Yu, No. 5:06-cv-00364-BR (E.D.N.C. Sept. 10, 2007). 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. AFFIRMED - 2 -
