Timothy Daniel Head appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. With respect to the merits of the § 1983 claim relating to an incident in a state court, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Head v. Rutherford Co., No. CA-04-89-1 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 14, 2004).

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, the district court imposed a system of prefiling review on Head. Because the court did not afford Head the notice and opportunity to respond required by the Rule prior to imposing the sanction, we vacate that portion of the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. *

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART