Case Name: Dennis Roger VANDYKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer O'DONELL, (female) at Rutherford County Detention Center; J.R. Davis, Police Officer at Forest City Police Department; James Fish, Lieutenant at Rutherford County Detention Center; Kay Young, Sergeant at Rutherford County Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees, and Dan Good, Sheriff of Rutherford County, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-27
Citations: 222 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 06-7454
Parties: Dennis Roger VANDYKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer O’DONELL, (female) at Rutherford County Detention Center; J.R. Davis, Police Officer at Forest City Police Department; James Fish, Lieutenant at Rutherford County Detention Center; Kay Young, Sergeant at Rutherford County Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees, and Dan Good, Sheriff of Rutherford County, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 264–264

Head Matter:
Dennis Roger VANDYKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer O’DONELL, (female) at Rutherford County Detention Center; J.R. Davis, Police Officer at Forest City Police Department; James Fish, Lieutenant at Rutherford County Detention Center; Kay Young, Sergeant at Rutherford County Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees, and Dan Good, Sheriff of Rutherford County, Defendant.
No. 06-7454.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 26, 2007.
Decided: March 27, 2007.
Dennis Roger Vandyke, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Douglas MacLatchie, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; James Demarest Secor, III, William L. Hill, Frazier, Franklin, Hill & Fury, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Roger Vandyke appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Vandyke v. O'Donell, No. 1:05-cv-00357 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 1, 2006). 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.