Curtis D. Horne, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In his complaint, Mr. Horne alleged that defendants violated the Eight Amendment to the United States Constitution by being "deliberately indifferent" to the "serious medical need" posed by his hemorrhoids. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-06.

The district court denied Mr. Horne the relief he sought. Judge Daniel found that appellant was proceeding in forma pauperis, then dismissed Mr. Horne's complaint sua sponte under the amended federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), as legally frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief might be granted.

Reviewing the materials submitted by Mr. Horne, we are convinced that for the reasons it stated, the district court was correct to find his claim frivolous and legally insufficient. But the district court appears to have erred in finding that appellant was proceeding in forma pauperis. The record before us indicates that Mr. Horne paid the full filing fee on 31 January, 1997. Thus, the district court erred in relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to dismiss the appellant's action. However, this administrative error is of no consequence. We may affirm the district court on any grounds supported by the record. See United States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537, 542 n. 6 (10th Cir.1994). A district court may dismiss a claim sua sponte when, as here, "it is patently obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged." McKinney v. Oklahoma Dept. of Human Servs., 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir.1991) (internal quotation and citation omitted). For the reasons stated by the district court, the allegations contained in Mr. Horne's complaint are entirely insufficient to support his claim.

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.