Michael Ray Williams appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Beck, No. CA-03-708-5-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 1, 2003). We dispense with oral argu *637 ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED