Daniel L. Allen appeals the district courts order and judgment granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing Allens 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. The courts order granting summary judgment may be affirmed on any ground appearing in the record, “including theories not relied upon or rejected by the district court.” Scott v. United States, 328 F.3d 132, 137 (4th Cir. 2003). We conclude that Allens claims are barred by North Carolinas three-year statute of limitations. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (noting length of statute of limitations in § 1983 action determined by state law); Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178, 181 (4th Cir. 1996) (applying North Carolinas three-year statute of limitations for § 1983 action). Allens claims accrued at the latest on May 20, 2010, the date of his second disciplinary hearing. Allen filed his complaint at the earliest on May 7, 2016, the date Allen signed his original complaint, clearly three years beyond the accrual date for statute of limitation purposes.
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order and judgment. 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:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.