¶1 Gary Sweeting appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. * See Sweeting v. McCabe, No. CA-05-13-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
¶2 AFFIRMED
¶3 In addition to seeking review of the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, Sweeting also asserts on appeal that he was not provided with the opportunity to amend his pleading, as requested in his complaint. Generally, a pro se litigant’s pleadings should be construed liberally to avoid inequity and the complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.1978). Leave to amend a complaint "shall be freely given when justice so requires,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), although the decision to grant leave rests within the sound discretion of the district court. Medigen of Ky., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of W.Va., 985 F.2d 164, 167-68 (4th Cir.1993). If a pro se complaint contains a potentially cognizable claim, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to particularize his allegations. See Coleman v. Peyton, 340 F.2d 603, 604 (4th Cir.1965) (per curiam). Because Sweeting failed to state a potentially cognizable claim, the district court did not err when it denied Sweeting the opportunity to particularize or amend his complaint.