Case Name: Ronald Eugene RICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Victory MILLS, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL; United States of America; Central Intelligence Agency; State of Arkansas; Southern Air Transport; Estate of George W. Bush; Estate of William French Smith; Edwin Meese; Richard Thornburgh; William Barr; Janet Reno; Estate of William Casey; Robert Deutch; George Tenet; Estate of William Jefferson Clinton; Raymond Buddy Young; Does I-XXX, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-24
Citations: 46 F. App'x 212
Docket Number: No. 01-7273
Parties: Ronald Eugene RICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Victory MILLS, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL; United States of America; Central Intelligence Agency; State of Arkansas; Southern Air Transport; Estate of George W. Bush; Estate of William French Smith; Edwin Meese; Richard Thornburgh; William Barr; Janet Reno; Estate of William Casey; Robert Deutch; George Tenet; Estate of William Jefferson Clinton; Raymond Buddy Young; Does I-XXX, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 46
Pages: 212–212

Head Matter:
Ronald Eugene RICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Victory MILLS, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL; United States of America; Central Intelligence Agency; State of Arkansas; Southern Air Transport; Estate of George W. Bush; Estate of William French Smith; Edwin Meese; Richard Thornburgh; William Barr; Janet Reno; Estate of William Casey; Robert Deutch; George Tenet; Estate of William Jefferson Clinton; Raymond Buddy Young; Does I-XXX, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-7273.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 4, 2002.
Decided Sept. 24, 2002.
Ronald Eugene Rice, Appellant Pro Se.
Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Ronald E. Rice filed this action in the district court asserting government officials and agencies conspired to import and distribute cocaine in urban, African-American neighborhoods and subvert the profits to the Nicaraguan Contra movement. The district court, on the recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000), and revoked Rice's unvested good time credits under 28 U.S.C. § 1932 (2000). Rice does not challenge the district court's conclusion that his claims were frivolous, so that portion of the district court's order is not properly before us. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Moreover, because the district court properly concluded that this action was malicious or was intended to harass the Defendants, notwithstanding Rice's self-serving statements to the contrary, we will not disturb the revocation of good time credits. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rice v. National Security Council, No. CA-00-3937-9-17AJ (D.S.C. June 8, 2001). 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.
. We previously dismissed the appeal of Rice's co-PIaintiff for failure to prosecute.
. There are two statutes designated as 28 U.S.C. § 1932; the district court's order involved the second § 1932.