Christopher Oxendine-Bey v. John Hinson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-ct-03001-F. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999702380]. Mailed to: Christopher Oxendine-Bey. [15-6996]

Appeal: 15-6996

Doc: 15

Filed: 11/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6996

CHRISTOPHER M. OXENDINE-BEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN HINSON; JOHN BODY; JOHN GRAY; JANE WILLIAMS;
DANIELS; JOHN HAIRING; JOHN STOCK; JOHN MOYER;
SINGLETON; JANE HART; JOHN LENNON,

JOHN
JOHN

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:15-ct-03001-F)

Submitted:

November 17, 2015

Decided:

November 19, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher M. Oxendine-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6996

Doc: 15

Filed: 11/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Christopher
order

dismissing

prejudice

under

M.

Oxendine-Bey

his

42

U.S.C.

28 U.S.C.

appeals
§ 1983

the

district

(2012)

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)

action

(2012).

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

court’s
without
We

have

Accordingly,

we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district
court. *

Oxendine-Bey v. Hinson, No. 5:15-ct-03001-F (E.D.N.C.

May 11 & June 16, 2015).

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

*

Insofar as Oxendine-Bey’s complaint could be construed as
raising a “failure to protect” claim unrelated to his excessive
force claim, we conclude this claim also would be subject to
dismissal.
See Danser v. Stansbury, 772 F.3d 340, 346-47 (4th
Cir. 2014).

2