Kevin Reece v. Thomas Horner

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1183 Doc: 31 Filed: 02/06/2026 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1183 KEVIN RAY REECE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THOMAS HORNER; MATTHEW DAVID LEACH; LEE B. BOLLINGER; CHRIS LAWS; JOSHUA HAWKS; BOB SCHURMEIER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00116-KDB-SCR) Submitted: February 2, 2026 Decided: February 6, 2026 Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Chandler J. Reece, REECE LEGAL SERVICES, PLLC, Sparta, North Carolina, for Appellant. Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, James W. Doggett, Deputy Solicitor General, Ryan Y. Park, Solicitor General, Elizabeth Curran O’Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1183 Doc: 31 Filed: 02/06/2026 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Kevin Ray Reece appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions and dismissing his amended civil action for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in these rulings. See Guerrero v. Ollie’s Bargain Outlet, Inc., 115 F.4th 349, 353 (4th Cir. 2024) (stating standard governing review of dismissal of complaint for failure to state claim on which relief can be granted). We also reject Reece’s argument raised for the first time on appeal requesting dismissal of his complaint with leave to amend it in the event this court affirms. See Milla v. Brown, 109 F.4th 222, 234 (4th Cir. 2024) (discussing parameters governing consideration of issues raised for first time on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Reece v. Horner, No. 5:23-cv-00116-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 2024). 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 2