Christopher Oxendine-Bey v. John Hinson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6996 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6996 CHRISTOPHER M. OXENDINE-BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN HINSON; JOHN BODY; JOHN GRAY;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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?