Case ID: f-appx_418/html/0183-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ivory D. DICKERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harlon E. COSTNER, U.S. Marshal, individually and in his official capacity; Don Johnson, Deputy U.S. Marshal, individually and in his official capacity; Dennis A. Williamson, U.S. Marshal, individually and in his official capacity; Douglas Cannon, Assistant U.S. Attorney, individually and in his official capacity; Roger Handberg, Assistant U.S. Attorney, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
    
      No. 10-7482.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 26, 2011.
    Decided: March 18, 2011.
    Ivory D. Dickerson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ivory D. Dickerson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). “The PLRA requires a district court to engage in a preliminary screening of any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. The court must ... dismiss the complaint, or any portion [thereof, that] is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 394 (4th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dickerson v. Costner, No. 1:09-cv-00931-WO-WWD (M.D.N.C. Sept. 20, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.