James Douglas Tinsley, a/k/a Jimmy Tinsley, a/k/a Jimmy D. Tinsley, III, a/k/a James… v. Detective Brian Wight, Scso; Investigator R. Bogan, I-58, Scso

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 of 3 --

3
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 of 3 --