Nigel Max Edge v. United States of America

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1261
NIGEL MAX EDGE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WILLIAM JOHN DEBEVOISE; SANDRA
LYNN DEBEVOISE; JIMMY MCCORMICK, Clarkstown Police Department;
OFFICER BARRY, Clarkstown Police Department; CLARKSTOWN POLICE
DEPARTMENT; DETECTIVE MOORE, Brunswick County Sheriff’s
Department; BRUNSWICK COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; OAKS
ISLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT; TINA ATHERAL, Hope for the Warriors
(FBI); ROBIN KELLEHER, Hope for the Warrior (FBI); HOPE FOR THE
WARRIORS (FBI); SEAN MANDALL, Neas Man Lab - Criminal Investigative
Division Camp Lejeune; CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION CAMP
LEJEUNE; 22 UNTIL NONE; SKIP LAWRANCE; MICHAEL WILLOWS;
JOHN MCSHARAR,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:24-cv-01086-FL)
Submitted: June 12, 2025 Decided: June 17, 2025
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Nigel Max Edge, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Gerard Clements, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina,
Michael Scott Rothrock, WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP,
Raleigh, North Carolina; Nicholas David Acevedo, Christopher J. Geis, WOMBLE BOND
DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Norwood Pitt Blanchard, III,
CROSSLEY MCINTOSH COLLIER HANLEY & EDES PLLC, Wilmington, North
Carolina; Daphne O’Connor, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Nigel Max Edge appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for
failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Edge v. United
States, No. 7:24-cv-01086-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 2025). 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

-- 3 of 3 --