Case Name: Brandon Michael PICKENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; Robeson County; Brad Perritt; James McRae; Mary Locklear; Jacqueline Smith; Joy Davis; T. Graham; E. Lechliter; Mr. Bullard; Pam Callahan; Nina Seals; Davy Bullard; Laron Locklear; W. Parrish; John Does 1, 2; Melba Webster; Jane Doe; NCPLS; IDS Legal Contractor; North Carolina General Assembly; Erika Ransom, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-28
Citations: 704 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 17-6993
Parties: Brandon Michael PICKENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; Robeson County; Brad Perritt; James McRae; Mary Locklear; Jacqueline Smith; Joy Davis; T. Graham; E. Lechliter; Mr. Bullard; Pam Callahan; Nina Seals; Davy Bullard; Laron Locklear; W. Parrish; John Does 1, 2; Melba Web ster; Jane Doe; NCPLS; IDS Legal Contractor; North Carolina General Assembly; Erika Ransom, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
Brandon Michael PICKENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; Robeson County; Brad Perritt; James McRae; Mary Locklear; Jacqueline Smith; Joy Davis; T. Graham; E. Lechliter; Mr. Bullard; Pam Callahan; Nina Seals; Davy Bullard; Laron Locklear; W. Parrish; John Does 1, 2; Melba Web ster; Jane Doe; NCPLS; IDS Legal Contractor; North Carolina General Assembly; Erika Ransom, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-6993
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 21, 2017
Decided: November 28, 2017
Brandon Michael Pickens, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Michael Pickens 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 Pickens v. Perry, No. 5:16-ct-03189-BO (E.D.N.C. May 18 & Sept. 15, 2017). 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