Case Name: Joann SAMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Glenn MANYOR, Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Robeson County; James Woodrow Jacobs, a/k/a J.W. Jacobs, Individually and in his official capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of Robeson County; Charles Tommy Strickland, a/k/a C.T. Strickland, Individually and in his official capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of Robeson County, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-20
Citations: 46 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 02-1114
Parties: Joann SAMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Glenn MANYOR, Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Robeson County; James Woodrow Jacobs, a/k/a J.W. Jacobs, Individually and in his official capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of Robeson County; Charles Tommy Strickland, a/k/a C.T. Strickland, Individually and in his official capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of Robeson County, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 46
Pages: 185–185

Head Matter:
Joann SAMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Glenn MANYOR, Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Robeson County; James Woodrow Jacobs, a/k/a J.W. Jacobs, Individually and in his official capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of Robeson County; Charles Tommy Strickland, a/k/a C.T. Strickland, Individually and in his official capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of Robeson County, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-1114.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2002.
Decided Sept. 20, 2002.
William L. Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark A. Davis, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Joann Sampson appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Sampson v. Manyor, Nos. CA-99-51-7-F; CA-99-69-7-F (E.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 2001). We grant Appellees' motion to decide this appeal on the briefs without 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.
We note that it is unnecessary to determine whether Defendants benefitted from Eleventh Amendment immunity as Sampson demonstrated no constitutional violation. See Belcher v. Oliver, 898 F.2d 32, 36 (4th Cir. 1990).