Case Name: Larry Felentise RAMBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Heather ROSE; City of Jacksonville; Jacksonville Police Department; John Ervin; Detective Jordan; Jeff Covington; Crystal Caton; Chris Cox; Sergeant Capps; Joseph Cooper; Shelly Partian; K. L. Doyle; Ronnie Dorn; Dale Silance; Richard Kellum; H. T. Raney; Timothy Oswalt, Attorney; Samuel S. Popkin; Frank L. Perry, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-12
Citations: 691 F. App'x 750
Docket Number: No. 16-7614
Parties: Larry Felentise RAMBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Heather ROSE; City of Jacksonville; Jacksonville Police Department; John Ervin; Detective Jordan; Jeff Covington; Crystal Caton; Chris Cox; Sergeant Capps; Joseph Cooper; Shelly Partian; K. L. Doyle; Ronnie Dorn; Dale Silance; Richard Kellum; H. T. Raney; Timothy Oswalt, Attorney; Samuel S. Popkin; Frank L. Perry, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 750–751

Head Matter:
Larry Felentise RAMBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Heather ROSE; City of Jacksonville; Jacksonville Police Department; John Ervin; Detective Jordan; Jeff Covington; Crystal Caton; Chris Cox; Sergeant Capps; Joseph Cooper; Shelly Partian; K. L. Doyle; Ronnie Dorn; Dale Silance; Richard Kellum; H. T. Raney; Timothy Oswalt, Attorney; Samuel S. Popkin; Frank L. Perry, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-7614
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2017
Decided: June 12, 2017
Larry Felentise Rambert, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Felentise Rambert appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, Rambert v. Rose, No. 6:15-ct-03316-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 25, 2016). 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