James Tinsley v. Brian Wight

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6629 JAMES DOUGLAS TINSLEY, a/k/a Jimmy Tinsley, a/k/a Jimmy D. Tinsley, III, a/k/a James D.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. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:09-cv-02455-SB) Submitted: August 30, 2012 Decided: September 11, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Douglas Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. Nathaniel Heyward Clarkson, III, Amy Miller Snyder, CLARKSON WALSH TERRELL & COULTER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James Douglas Tinsley appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)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-cv- 02455-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 3