William Neal, Jr. v. Dwayne Dean

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-ct-03055-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999653491]. Mailed to: Diane Hamilton, Christine Mumma and William Neal. [15-6458]

Appeal: 15-6458

Doc: 28

Filed: 09/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6458

WILLIAM J. NEAL, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DWAYNE DEAN, Investigator, Goldsboro PD; L. D. BETHEA,
Investigator, Goldsboro PD; BRYANT CANADY, Investigator,
Goldsboro PD; CHRISTOPHER ROGERSON; CHRISTINA MUMMA; C.
BRANSON VICKORY, III; J. MICHAEL RICKS; OFFICER ROBERT T.
SMITH; DIANE HAMILTON,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:13-ct-03055-FL)

Submitted:

August 24, 2015

Decided:

September 3, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William J. Neal, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Dan M. Hartzog, Jr.,
CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Dal
Floyd Wooten, III, WOOTEN & TURIK, Kinston, North Carolina;
Burton Craige, PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Christine Mumma, Durham, North Carolina; David John Adinolfi,
II, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.

Appeal: 15-6458

Doc: 28

Filed: 09/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6458

Doc: 28

Filed: 09/03/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William J. Neal, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

We

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Neal v. Dean, No. 5:13-ct-03055-FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 26,

2015).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3