Case Name: Rodney Victor HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K.S. CLARK, Virginia State Trooper, Virginia State Police Barracks with office at Giles County; J. Bowling, Virginia State Trooper, Virginia State Police Barracks with Office at Giles County; Sheriffs Department, at Pearisburg, Virginia; Department of Motor Vehicles; Gerald W. Duncan, Treasurer, Giles County Treasurer's Office, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-17
Citations: 89 F. App'x 432
Docket Number: No. 03-2334
Parties: Rodney Victor HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K.S. CLARK, Virginia State Trooper, Virginia State Police Barracks with office at Giles County; J. Bowling, Virginia State Trooper, Virginia State Police Barracks with Office at Giles County; Sheriffs Department, at Pearisburg, Virginia; Department of Motor Vehicles; Gerald W. Duncan, Treasurer, Giles County Treasurer’s Office, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 432–433

Head Matter:
Rodney Victor HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K.S. CLARK, Virginia State Trooper, Virginia State Police Barracks with office at Giles County; J. Bowling, Virginia State Trooper, Virginia State Police Barracks with Office at Giles County; Sheriffs Department, at Pearisburg, Virginia; Department of Motor Vehicles; Gerald W. Duncan, Treasurer, Giles County Treasurer’s Office, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-2334.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 2004.
Decided March 17, 2004.
Rodney Victor Harris, Appellant pro se.
Jim Harold Guynn, Jr., Guynn, Memmer & Dillon, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Victor Harris appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Harris v. Clark, No. CA-03-624-7 (WD.Va. filed Sept. 22, 2003; entered Sept. 23, 2003). 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.
DISMISSED