Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-11
Citations: 478 F. App'x 15
Docket Number: No. 12-6629
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 478
Pages: 15–15

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.