Michael Alonza Rufus appeals the district courts order accepting the magistrate judges recommendation and dismissing his action as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 217, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980); Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 838 F.3d 665, 666-67 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam); Glick v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 509 (9th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order. See Rufus v. Seymour, No. 6:20-cv-01394-MBS, 2020 WL 3548265 (D.S.C. June 30, 2020). 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
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.