
    Eric Levanter DeMILLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MUNICIPALITY OF DENYER, COLORADO; Municipality of Fort Collins, Colorado; Rawlins, Wyoming Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-1118.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    June 15, 2011.
    Eric Levanter DeMillard, Prescott, AZ, pro se.
    Before LUCERO, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

Eric DeMillard filed this suit against the Colorado Supreme Court, the Colorado Court of Appeals, the Larimer County District Court, and the Rawlins, Wyoming Police Department. In a thorough eight-page order, the district court dismissed Mr. DeMillard’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which governs proceedings in forma pauperis and provides that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action ... is frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Mr. DeMillard appeals this decision and seeks permission to proceed informa pauperis on appeal. For substantially the same reasons set out by the district court in its order, we affirm the dismissal below. See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1259 (10th Cir.2006) (“We generally review a district court’s dismissal for frivolousness under § 1915 for abuse of discretion.”). We also deny Mr. DeMillard’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as he fails to present a non-frivolous argument on appeal. And finally, we deny Mr. DeMillard’s motion to transfer his appeal to the Fifth Circuit, as he has provided no legal basis why this is required. 
      
       After examining appellant's brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     