UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1852
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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (4:15-cv-00050-AWA-DEM)
Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John M. Dickson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
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
3