UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2389

CASEY L. JONES, a/k/a Stephanie Hess; TODD MAURICE HESS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. EDDIE CATHEY, in his individual capacity and capacity as Sheriff of Union County, North Carolina; UNION COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; STEPHEN EASON, in his individual capacity and capacity as an employee of the Union County Sheriff’s Office; MENDEL MILES, in his individual capacity and capacity as an employee of the Union County Sheriff’s Office; JOHN JULIAN ALDRIDGE, in his individual capacity and capacity as an employee of the Union County Sheriff’s Office; JOHN DOES, 1-4, whose true names are unknown, in their individual capacities and capacities as employees of the Union County Sheriff’s Office; TREY ROBINSON, in his individual capacity and capacity as District Attorney of Union County, North Carolina; DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE OF UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA; KERRI FREDHEIM, in her individual capacity and capacity as Assistant District Attorney of Union County, North Carolina, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00509-KDB-DCK)

Submitted: June 2, 2021 Decided: July 29, 2021

Before WILKINSON, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Casey L. Jones, Todd Maurice Hess, Appellants Pro Se. Steven Andrew Brader, Raleigh, North Carolina, Patrick Houghton Flanagan, CRANFILL SUMNER, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Casey Lee Jones and Todd Maurice Hess appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing their civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Jones v. Cathey, No. 3:18-cv-00509-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED