Case Name: Tracey Terrell GRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lisa R. HALL, ALJ Judge, Disability Hearing Law Judge Office of the Disability Adjudication and Review, Raleigh, NC; Michael Sharpe, Dr., Pitt Memorial Hospital Staff; Julie Sawyer Little, Vocational Expert; Prisoner Legal Services, Attorney Sarah J. Farber and Staff, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-22
Citations: 670 F. App'x 828
Docket Number: No. 16-7061
Parties: Tracey Terrell GRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lisa R. HALL, ALJ Judge, Disability Hearing Law Judge Office of the Disability Adjudication and Review, Raleigh, NC; Michael Sharpe, Dr., Pitt Memorial Hospital Staff; Julie Sawyer Little, Vocational Expert; Prisoner Legal Services, Attorney Sarah J. Farber and Staff, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 828–829

Head Matter:
Tracey Terrell GRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lisa R. HALL, ALJ Judge, Disability Hearing Law Judge Office of the Disability Adjudication and Review, Raleigh, NC; Michael Sharpe, Dr., Pitt Memorial Hospital Staff; Julie Sawyer Little, Vocational Expert; Prisoner Legal Services, Attorney Sarah J. Farber and Staff, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-7061
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 17, 2016
Decided: November 22, 2016
Tracey Terrell Grady, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tracey Terrell Grady 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 no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Grady v. Hall, No. 5:16-ct-03026-FL (E.D.N.C. July 28, 2016). 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