Christopher Benjamin v. Dale Inman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1181
CHRISTOPHER BENJAMIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DALE INMAN; DOUG HEWITT; TERRIE HUTAFF; GREG SCHAEFER;
GERALD DIETZEN; WILLIE MCDONALD; STANLEY SADLER; STEVEN
BULLARD; ANTHONY G. CHAVONNE, Mayor; CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE;
ERNEST LOVE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:09-cv-00553-FL)
Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Benjamin, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Keith Leonard,
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, Fayetteville, North Carolina; James
Carlton Thornton, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Benjamin appeals the district court’s
order granting in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss Benjamin’s
complaint alleging a state retaliatory employment discrimination
claim, and violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 &
Supp. 2011), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 (2006).* Benjamin
further appeals a subsequent order granting summary judgment to
Defendant Love on Benjamin’s § 1983 claim. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Benjamin v. Inman,
No. 5:09-cv-00553-FL (E.D.N.C. Aug. 5, 2010; May 18, 2011). 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
* Benjamin’s appeal from this order was interlocutory when
filed. The district court’s subsequent entry of a final
judgment permits review of the order under the doctrine of
cumulative finality. See In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287–89
(4th Cir. 2005); Equip. Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer
Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992).

-- 2 of 2 --