Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-20
Citations: 451 F. App'x 251
Docket Number: No. 11-1181
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 451
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
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.
No. 11-1181.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 20, 2011.
Christopher Benjamin, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Keith Leonard, City of Fayette-ville, Fayetteville, North Carolina; James Carlton Thornton, Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 sub sequent order granting summary judgment to Defendant Love on Benjamin's § 1983 claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 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); 2011 WL 1897443 (May 18, 2011). 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.
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).