Jeffrey McNeair v. Obie Gibson, No. 09-7851 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7851 JEFFREY DENNARD MCNEAIR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OBIE GIBSON; MICHAEL ALLEN; BRANDON BROOKS; REGINA WILLIAMS; CRAIG STANCIL; JEFF TILLEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-ct-03107-D) Submitted: March 10, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Dennard McNeair, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Bredenberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Dennard McNeair, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court s order denying relief on his civil complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). With regard to McNeair s excessive force claim, we vacate that portion of the district court s order and remand for further consideration in light of Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175 (2010). Turning to McNeair s remaining claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court s rejection of those claims. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s denial of relief on the remaining claims for the reasons stated by the court. McNeair v. Gibson, No. 5:08-ct-03107-D (E.D.N.C. Sept. 21, 2009). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED We note that the district court did not have the benefit of Wilkins at the time it issued its opinion. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.