Kevin Ray Reece v. Thomas Horner

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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 of 2 --