
    Fernando Palma CARIAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donnie HARRISON, Sheriff; E. A. Blomgren, Investigator; James Michael Cornaire, Deputy Sheriff; Drug Enforcement Agency Director; United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Director; Christopher Brant; Tom Halvas; Eric Holder; Unidentified Indemnitor for Wake County; William Atwell; Lance Anthony; Michael Williams; D. Taylor; K. Manning, Defendants-Appellees, and United States of America, Party-in-Interest-Appellee, and Dwight Yokum; Nardine Mary Guirguis; Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants.
    No. 17-6490
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 20, 2017
    Decided: December 4, 2017
    
      Fernando Palma Carias, Appellant Pro Se. Roger Allen Askew, John Albert Maxfield, Virginia Claire Tharrington, WAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Rudy E. Renter, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina; Robert Edward Nunley, NUNLEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina; Walter A. Schmidlin, III, STEWART & SCHMIDLIN, PLLC, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fernando Palma Carias appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 (2012); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971); the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (2012); the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012); and provisions of North Carolina state law.

We have reviewed the record in light of Carias’ arguments on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Carias v. Harrison, Nos. 5:13-ct-03264-FL; 5:14-ct-3104-FL, 2016 WL 1171544, 2017 WL 1155749 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 23, 2016 & Mar. 27, 2017). We deny Carias’ motion for a transcript at government expense. 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 
      
       As to Carias’ Fourth Amendment claims regarding surveillance equipment in his vehicle, we conclude that Carias’ self-serving statements are insufficient to create genuine issues of material fact that must be submitted to the jury.
     