Case ID: f-appx_478/html/0015-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Douglas TINSLEY, a/k/a Jimmy Tinsley, a/k/a Jimmy D. Tinsley, III, a/k/a James D. Tinsley, II, a/k/a James Douglas Tinsley, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Detective Brian WIGHT, SCSO; Investigator R. Bogan, I-58, SCSO, Defendants-Appellees, and Sheriff Chuck Wright, SCSO; County of Spartanburg, being sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.
    No. 12-6629.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 30, 2012.
    Decided: Sept. 11, 2012.
    James Douglas Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. Nathaniel Heyward Clarkson, III, Amy Miller Snyder, Clarkson Walsh Terrell & Coulter, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Douglas Tinsley appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tinsley v. Wight, No. 7:09-cv02455-SB (D.S.C. Mar. 28, 2012) 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.