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, 478 F. App'x 15

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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