Case Name: William T. WATTS, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNKNOWN OFFICER, of Lexington County Sheriffs Department; Unknown Sled Officers; Unknown U.S. Military; FBI; John Etters; Craig Hall; Officer Shumpert; Officer Singleton; James Metts; Lewis McCarty; Commissioner of Sled, Sheriff, Head, Leader; Governor Nikki Haley; United States, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-19
Citations: 593 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: No. 14-7633
Parties: William T. WATTS, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNKNOWN OFFICER, of Lexington County Sheriffs Department; Unknown Sled Officers; Unknown U.S. Military; FBI; John Etters; Craig Hall; Officer Shumpert; Officer Singleton; James Metts; Lewis McCarty; Commissioner of Sled, Sheriff, Head, Leader; Governor Nikki Haley; United States, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 593
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
William T. WATTS, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNKNOWN OFFICER, of Lexington County Sheriffs Department; Unknown Sled Officers; Unknown U.S. Military; FBI; John Etters; Craig Hall; Officer Shumpert; Officer Singleton; James Metts; Lewis McCarty; Commissioner of Sled, Sheriff, Head, Leader; Governor Nikki Haley; United States, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-7633.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 12, 2015.
Decided: Feb. 19, 2015.
William T. Watts, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William T. Watts, II, appeals the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint under 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), as frivolous and malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Watts v. Unknown Officer, No. 8:14-cv-03223-TMC (D.S.C. Oct. 8, 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.