Case Name: Dayyan Atta BEY ex rel Derick SEALEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. CALL, badge # 534 individual, Policeman (Public Servant); K. Bradford, Corporal, Policeman Supervisor (Public Servant); Albert Patrick, individual, Judge (Public Servant); Tonya R. Henderson-Stith, individual, Judge (Public Servant), Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-19
Citations: 622 F. App'x 260
Docket Number: No. 15-1845
Parties: Dayyan Atta BEY ex rel Derick SEALEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. CALL, badge # 534 individual, Policeman (Public Servant); K. Bradford, Corporal, Policeman Supervisor (Public Servant); Albert Patrick, individual, Judge (Public Servant); Tonya R. Henderson-Stith, individual, Judge (Public Servant), Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges,
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 622
Pages: 260–260

Head Matter:
Dayyan Atta BEY ex rel Derick SEALEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. CALL, badge # 534 individual, Policeman (Public Servant); K. Bradford, Corporal, Policeman Supervisor (Public Servant); Albert Patrick, individual, Judge (Public Servant); Tonya R. Henderson-Stith, individual, Judge (Public Servant), Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-1845.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2015.
Decided: Nov. 19, 2015.
Dayyan Atta Bey ex rel Derick Sealey, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges,

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dayyan Atta Bey ex rel Derick Sealey appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Bey v. Call, No. 4:15-ev-00055-MSD-LRL (E.D.Va. July 16, 2015). 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.
DISMISSED.