Oxendine-Bey v. Hinson
This text of 622 F. App'x 259 (Oxendine-Bey v. Hinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Christopher M. Oxendine-Bey appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 [260]*260U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.
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. Stansberry, 772 F.3d 340, 346-47 (4th Cir.2014).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
622 F. App'x 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oxendine-bey-v-hinson-ca4-2015.