Case Name: William J. NEAL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dwayne DEAN, Investigator, Goldsboro PD; L.D. Bethea, Investigator, Golds-boro PD; Bryant Canady, Investigator, Goldsboro PD; Christopher Rogerson; Christina Mumma; C. Branson Vickory, III; J. Michael Ricks; Officer Robert T. Smith; Diane Hamilton, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-03
Citations: 615 F. App'x 142
Docket Number: No. 15-6458
Parties: William J. NEAL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dwayne DEAN, Investigator, Goldsboro PD; L.D. Bethea, Investigator, Golds-boro PD; Bryant Canady, Investigator, Goldsboro PD; Christopher Rogerson; Christina Mumma; C. Branson Vickory, III; J. Michael Ricks; Officer Robert T. Smith; Diane Hamilton, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
William J. NEAL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dwayne DEAN, Investigator, Goldsboro PD; L.D. Bethea, Investigator, Golds-boro PD; Bryant Canady, Investigator, Goldsboro PD; Christopher Rogerson; Christina Mumma; C. Branson Vickory, III; J. Michael Ricks; Officer Robert T. Smith; Diane Hamilton, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-6458.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 24, 2015.
Decided: Sept. 3, 2015.
William J. Neal, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Dan M. Hartzog, Jr., Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Dal Floyd Wooten, III, Wooten & Turik, Kinston, North Carolina; Burton Craige, Patterson Harkavy LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Christine Mumma, Durham, North Carolina; David John Adinolfí, II, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished P-ER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William J. Neal, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Neal v. Dean, No. 5:13-ct-03055-FL, 2015 WL 847420 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 26, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.