ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Mr. Adamson was injured on the job while driving through Oklahoma in September 1991. He now seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the individuals involved in resolving the resulting workman’s compensation claim: Michael Cling-man, the administrator for the Oklahoma Worker’s Compensation Court at the time of Mr. Adamson’s claim; James Porter, a former judge for the Oklahoma Worker’s Compensation Court who took jurisdiction over Mr. Adamson’s claim; Kimberly West, another former judge for the Oklahoma Worker’s Compensation Court who took jurisdiction over Mr. Adamson’s claim; Dennis Seacat, Mr. Adamson’s attorney; Don Wyatt, Mr. Adamson’s attorney; and John MacKenzie, attorney for Mr. Adamson’s employer and his employer’s insurance company. He claims that the defendants violated his Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and seeks $1 million from each defendant. The district court granted Mr. Adamson permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
The district court, sua sponte, dismissed Mr. Adamson’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Section 1915(e) allows the dis*687trict court to dismiss an informa pauperis proceeding if, at any time, “the court determines that ... the action ... is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” In this case, the district court provided two grounds for § 1915(e) dismissal of Mr. Adamson’s claim: (1) that the defendants had immunity from a § 1983 claim; and (2) that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Opinion and Order, 3-6 (N.D.Okla. Sept. 19, 2005).
We have carefully reviewed the briefs of Appellant and Appellee (Mr. Wyatt was the only defendant to file a brief), the record on appeal, and the district court’s order. For substantially similar reasons to those laid out by the district court in its September 19, 2005, order, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Adam-son’s claim.