Court Opinion

ID: 8428339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-04 04:31:49.29269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:48:33.529520
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Tommy Richardson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Richardson v. Bennett, No. CA-04-211-5-BO (E.D.N.C. June 21, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED