Steven Simon, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

In September 2006, Simon filed a complaint alleging many civil rights violations resulting from his August 2001 arrest in Atlanta, Georgia. The district court dismissed Simon’s complaint as frivolous because the complaint was filed well beyond the two-year statute of limitations for section 1983 claims arising from events that occurred in Georgia.

We review a district court’s dismissal of a claim as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)© for abuse of discretion. Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). “[Bjeeause district judges remain more familiar with and are more experienced to recognize potentially frivolous claims ... [a] determination of frivolity is best left to the district court.” Id. “A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Id.

Section 1983 claims are governed by the forum state’s general personal injury statute of limitations, see Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 109 S.Ct. 573, 574, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989); and in Georgia, the statute of limitations is two years. Uboh v. Reno, 141 F.3d 1000, 1002 (11th Cir. 1998). In this case, Simon’s complaint was filed approximately five years after the August 2001 events giving rise to his claims. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Simon’s complaint was frivolous because it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. *

AFFIRMED.