Case Name: Napoleon J. Rankin BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Anthony Leon Hoover, a/k/a Anthony Leon Hoover El; Terrence Leroy Wright, El; Maurice Hartgrove, as Moorish American Nationals; James K. Hoyle Bey; Samuel Junior Jackson; James Lee Troxler, El; Errick L. Bowe; Webster Waller, a/k/a Webster Waller Bey; Michael Holliday, Plaintiffs, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Sub Jurisdiction Counties; North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-30
Citations: 606 F. App'x 112
Docket Number: No. 15-6521
Parties: Napoleon J. Rankin BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Anthony Leon Hoover, a/k/a Anthony Leon Hoover El; Terrence Leroy Wright, El; Maurice Hartgrove, as Moorish American Nationals; James K. Hoyle Bey; Samuel Junior Jackson; James Lee Troxler, El; Errick L. Bowe; Webster Waller, a/k/a Webster Waller Bey; Michael Holliday, Plaintiffs, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Sub Jurisdiction Counties; North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 606
Pages: 112–113

Head Matter:
Napoleon J. Rankin BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Anthony Leon Hoover, a/k/a Anthony Leon Hoover El; Terrence Leroy Wright, El; Maurice Hartgrove, as Moorish American Nationals; James K. Hoyle Bey; Samuel Junior Jackson; James Lee Troxler, El; Errick L. Bowe; Webster Waller, a/k/a Webster Waller Bey; Michael Holliday, Plaintiffs, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Sub Jurisdiction Counties; North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-6521.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 25, 2015.
Decided: June 30, 2015.
Napoleon J. Rankin Bey, Appellant Pro Se. .
Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Napoleon J. Rankin Bey appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Jackson v. North Carolina, No. 5:14-ct-03220-F (E.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2015). 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.
DISMISSED.