Case Name: Charles F. STANSBURY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Honorable Stephen M. WALDRON; Honorable Yolanda L. Curtain; Lisa Hyle Marts; Honorable Angela M. Eaves; Eric P. MacDonnell, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-09
Citations: 694 F. App'x 210
Docket Number: No. 17-1033
Parties: Charles F. STANSBURY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Honorable Stephen M. WALDRON; Honorable Yolanda L. Curtain; Lisa Hyle Marts; Honorable Angela M. Eaves; Eric P. MacDonnell, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 210–210

Head Matter:
Charles F. STANSBURY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Honorable Stephen M. WALDRON; Honorable Yolanda L. Curtain; Lisa Hyle Marts; Honorable Angela M. Eaves; Eric P. MacDonnell, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-1033
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 20, 2017
Decided: August 9, 2017
Charles F. Stansbury, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles F. Stansbury, Jr., appeals the district court's order denying relief.on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Stansbury's claim that Defendant Lisa Hyle Marts fabricated evidence because Stansbury failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012); Bell Atl. Corp, v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570, 127 S.Ct, 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); see also Thomas v. Salvation Army S. Territory, 841 F.3d 632, 638 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating we may "affirm the district court on alternate grounds"). We affirm the dismissal of the remaining claims for the reasons stated by the district court. Stansbury v. Waldron, No. 1:16-cv-03888-GLR, 2016 WL 7338430 (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2016). 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