Filed: Jan. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7277 ANTWAN BENTHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEGAN SMITH, Pretrial Case Manager, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00959-TSE-TCB) Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7277 ANTWAN BENTHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEGAN SMITH, Pretrial Case Manager, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00959-TSE-TCB) Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7277
ANTWAN BENTHALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEGAN SMITH, Pretrial Case Manager,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00959-TSE-TCB)
Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 23, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antwan Benthall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antwan Benthall appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Benthall’s motion to amend the case
caption and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Benthall v. Smith, No.
1:17-cv-00959-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. Sept. 1, 2017). 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