HABA v. ARTHUR FNU S1154 S993 S905 S486 S922 S1012 S24 S931 S891 S1223 (2021)

Moussa Moise Haba appeals the district court's order dismissing his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Regarding Haba's contention that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint before summonses were served on the defendants, service was not required before dismissing the action for failure to state a claim as 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A instruct the district court to dismiss a complaint “at any time” that dismissal appears warranted. See Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, like § 1915(e)(2), “clearly does not require that process be served ․ before dismissal.”). Accordingly, we deny Haba's motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Haba v. Arthur, No. 3:19-cv-00686-HEH-EWH, 2020 WL 6729074 (E.D. Va. Nov. 16, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.