UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1368
JOHN M. DICKSON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FBI NEWPORT NEWS FIELD OFFICE, JOHN/JANE DOE(S), TECHNICAL
AGENT(S), acting as a person(s) and member(s) of a criminal
enterprise under The (RICO) Act of Title 18 U.S. Code 1962;
CITY OF HAMPTON VIRGINIA POLICE DIVISION’S HOMELAND SECURITY
UNIT, TECHNICAL POLICE OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE(S), acting
as a person(s) and member(s) of a criminal enterprise under
The (RICO) Act of Title 18 U.S. Code 1962; CITY OF NEWPORT
NEWS VIRGINIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, TECHNICAL POLICE OFFICER(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE(S), acting as a person and member of a
criminal enterprise under The (RICO) Act of Title 18 U.S.
Code 1962; HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY, acting as
a person and member of a criminal enterprise under The
(RICO) Act of Title 18 U.S. Code 1962; ATTORNEY S. LAWRENCE
DUMVILLE OF NORRIS, ST. CLAIR & LOTKIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise under
The (RICO) Act of Title 18 U.S. Code 1962; ATTORNEY KENNETH
W. ABRAMS, OF MCGUIRE WOODS LLP, acting as a person and
member of a criminal enterprise under The (RICO) Act of
Title 18 U.S. Code 1962,
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-00124-AWA-DEM)
Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 29, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 untimely and for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Dickson v. FBI Newport
News Field Office, No. 4:15-cv-00124-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va. Mar. 2,
2016). 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