Filed: May 12, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8109 JAMES D. TINSLEY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SHERIFF RICK DAVIS; CAPTAIN GILBERT; COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STEVE WYATT; COUNTY OF HENDERSON, N.C., Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00379-GCM) Submitted: April 13, 2010 Decided: May 12, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER an
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8109 JAMES D. TINSLEY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SHERIFF RICK DAVIS; CAPTAIN GILBERT; COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STEVE WYATT; COUNTY OF HENDERSON, N.C., Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00379-GCM) Submitted: April 13, 2010 Decided: May 12, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8109
JAMES D. TINSLEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF RICK DAVIS; CAPTAIN GILBERT; COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
STEVE WYATT; COUNTY OF HENDERSON, N.C.,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00379-GCM)
Submitted: April 13, 2010 Decided: May 12, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James D. Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James D. Tinsley appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying his
motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s orders. Tinsley v. Sheriff Rick Davis, No. 1:09-cv-
00379-GCM (W.D.N.C. Oct. 13, 2009; Oct. 30, 2009). 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
2