Case Name: Biyan O'Neal BENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brad PLEASANTS, Officer; S.A. Sefton, Officer, DefendantsAppellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-20
Citations: 230 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 07-1103
Parties: Biyan O’Neal BENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brad PLEASANTS, Officer; S.A. Sefton, Officer, DefendantsAppellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
Biyan O’Neal BENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brad PLEASANTS, Officer; S.A. Sefton, Officer, DefendantsAppellees.
No. 07-1103.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2007.
Decided: June 20, 2007.
Bryan O’Neal Benson, Appellant Pro Se. John A. Maxfield, County Attorney’s Office for the County of Wake, Raleigh, North Carolina; Reid Russell, Julie Lynn Bell, Patterson, Dilthey, Clay, Bryson & Anderson, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bryan O'Neal Benson appeals the district court's order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing Benson's claims against the Defendants in their official capacities in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Benson v. Pleasants, No. 5:06-cv-00058-F (E.D.N.C. Jan. 4, 2007). 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.
Although this appeal was interlocutory at the time Benson filed the notice of appeal, we possess jurisdiction to consider the merits because the district court has subsequently entered final judgment disposing of the remaining claims. See In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284 (4th Cir.2005).