Christopher Benjamin v. Dale Inman, No. 11-1181 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1181 CHRISTOPHER BENJAMIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DALE INMAN; DOUG HEWITT; TERRIE HUTAFF; GREG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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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. record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the 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). dispense with oral argument because the facts and We 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

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.