UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

(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