Case Name: Rickey Nelson SPENCER, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Sheena Spencer, Plaintiff, v. Terry ELMORE; David Privette, Sergeant; Lieutenant Meyer; Sergeant Hawkins; Roderick M. Wright, Attorney; W. Erwin Spainhour, Judge; Christopher M. Collier; Jim Elmore; Iredell County; State of North Carolina, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-26
Citations: 266 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 07-6910
Parties: Rickey Nelson SPENCER, Plaintiff—Appellant, and Sheena Spencer, Plaintiff, v. Terry ELMORE; David Privette, Sergeant; Lieutenant Meyer; Sergeant Hawkins; Roderick M. Wright, Attorney; W. Erwin Spainhour, Judge; Christopher M. Collier; Jim Elmore; Iredell County; State of North Carolina, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 266
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
Rickey Nelson SPENCER, Plaintiff—Appellant, and Sheena Spencer, Plaintiff, v. Terry ELMORE; David Privette, Sergeant; Lieutenant Meyer; Sergeant Hawkins; Roderick M. Wright, Attorney; W. Erwin Spainhour, Judge; Christopher M. Collier; Jim Elmore; Iredell County; State of North Carolina, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-6910.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 31, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 26, 2008.
Rickey Nelson Spencer, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rickey Nelson Spencer appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Spencer v. Elmore, No. 5:07-cv-00055-MU, 2007 WL 1652263 (W.D.N.C. June 7, 2007). We further deny Spencer's motion for discovery. 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.