
    John M. DICKSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judge Bryant L. SUGG, Newport News Circuit Court 7th Judicial Court of Virginia As an “enterprise” for RICO purposes Acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; Former Judge Mr. Howard Vincent Conway, Jr., Of the Newport News Circuit Court Formerly of 7th Judicial Court of Virginia As an “enterprise” for RICO purposes Acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO); Commonwealth’s Attorney Mr. Thomas C. Daniel, Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office For the city of Newport News Acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); City of Newport News Virginia, As an “enterprise” for RICO purposes Acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); City of Newport News Virginia Police Department, Acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); MR. R. Dean Barker, CSAT for, Hampton/Newport News. C.I.T./Jail Services Coordinator Acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-1852.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 15, 2015.
    Decided: Oct. 19, 2015.
    John M. Dickson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John M. Dickson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2012). We have reviewed, the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dickson v. Sugg, No. 4:15-cv-00050-AWA-DEM (E.D.Va. July 2, 2015). 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.  