John M. DICKSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARNES & NOBLE INC., The Corporation, In its Individual/Official capacities, Acting under Color of federal and State Law. As an "enterprise" for RICO Acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations; Mrs/Ms Lynda Magee, Manager of Barnes & Noble Inc. In her individual capacity, Acting under Color of federal and State Law. Acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); Mrs/Ms Jana Doe, Employee of Barnes & Noble Inc. In her individual capacity, Acting under Color of federal and State Law. Acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); Mr. Carl Doe, Employee of Barnes & Noble Inc. Acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); Mrs/Ms Ryan Doe, Former employee of Starbucks Corporation Doing business as Starbucks Coffee Inside the Barnes & Noble Inc. Store Acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); City of Hampton Virginia Police Department, As an "enterprise" for RICO purposes In its individual capacity And as a person Acting under Color of federal and State Law. Acting as a person and member of a criminal enterprise Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Defendants-Appellees, 622 F. App'x 264

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit! PER CURIAM: John M. Dickson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)® (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dickson v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-00051-AWA-DEM (E.D.Va. filed June 25, 2015; entered June 26, 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.