Case Name: Patrick O. CHRISTIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rodney MOORE, Chief of Police, Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department; Daniel E. Bailey, Jr., Sheriff, Mecklenburg County Sheriff Department; James Townsend, Property Manager, Monroe Hall; FNU Nipper, Cat's Safety Manager; Sarah Parker, North Carolina Chief Justice, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-20
Citations: 408 F. App'x 723
Docket Number: No. 10-7292
Parties: Patrick O. CHRISTIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rodney MOORE, Chief of Police, Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department; Daniel E. Bailey, Jr., Sheriff, Mecklenburg County Sheriff Department; James Townsend, Property Manager, Monroe Hall; FNU Nipper, Cat’s Safety Manager; Sarah Parker, North Carolina Chief Justice, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 408
Pages: 723–723

Head Matter:
Patrick O. CHRISTIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rodney MOORE, Chief of Police, Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department; Daniel E. Bailey, Jr., Sheriff, Mecklenburg County Sheriff Department; James Townsend, Property Manager, Monroe Hall; FNU Nipper, Cat’s Safety Manager; Sarah Parker, North Carolina Chief Justice, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-7292.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.
Decided: Jan. 20, 2011.
Patrick O. Christian, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick O. Christian appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Christian v. Moore, No. 3:10-cv-00302-FDW-DSC, 2010 WL 3418390 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 30, 2010). 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.
DISMISSED.