Case Name: William Reid BLACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES ARMY; Army Review Board Agency; Captain Pulson, Captain of Batter A 15FD; Thomas White, Secretary of Army (U.S.); John M. McHugh, U.S. Army Special Affairs; Rick A. Schweigert, Chief Congressional Special Action Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-28
Citations: 572 F. App'x 255
Docket Number: No. 14-1194
Parties: William Reid BLACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES ARMY; Army Review Board Agency; Captain Pulson, Captain of Batter A 15FD; Thomas White, Secretary of Army (U.S.); John M. McHugh, U.S. Army Special Affairs; Rick A. Schweigert, Chief Congressional Special Action Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 572
Pages: 255–256

Head Matter:
William Reid BLACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES ARMY; Army Review Board Agency; Captain Pulson, Captain of Batter A 15FD; Thomas White, Secretary of Army (U.S.); John M. McHugh, U.S. Army Special Affairs; Rick A. Schweigert, Chief Congressional Special Action Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-1194.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 22, 2014.
Decided: May 28, 2014.
William Reid Black, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Reid Black appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012), Black's complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Black v. U.S. Army, No. 1:13-cv-00889-NCT-LPA, 2014 WL 257275 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 23, 2014). 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.