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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.