Bradley Meredith v. Kristina Deeds; Matthew Mardres

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2395
BRADLEY MEREDITH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
KRISTINA DEEDS; MATTHEW MARDRES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00053-JPJ)
Submitted: March 31, 2016 Decided: April 6, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bradley Meredith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Bradley Meredith appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
(2012) for failure to state a claim. Pursuant to
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a district “court shall dismiss [a] case at
any time” if the action “fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We review the
dismissal of an action under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo.
De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003).
Because Meredith’s complaint alleges violation of his
constitutional rights, he presumably was attempting to bring a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. However, only those acting
under color of state law are amenable to suit under § 1983. See
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Here, Meredith has
failed to allege that the defendants (the mother of his child
and the mother’s current partner) were state actors or provide
any other legal basis for his suit.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

-- 2 of 2 --