Case Name: Sami GABER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kristin HENDERSON, Special Agent, Office of the Inspector General; Michael Spolidoro, Special Agent, Office of the Inspector General; Michael Kearney, Station Manager, United States Postal Service, Defendants-Appellees, and John E. Potter, United States Postmaster General, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-19
Citations: 318 F. App'x 210
Docket Number: No. 08-1723
Parties: Sami GABER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kristin HENDERSON, Special Agent, Office of the Inspector General; Michael Spolidoro, Special Agent, Office of the Inspector General; Michael Kearney, Station Manager, United States Postal Service, Defendants—Appellees, and John E. Potter, United States Postmaster General, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 318
Pages: 210–210

Head Matter:
Sami GABER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kristin HENDERSON, Special Agent, Office of the Inspector General; Michael Spolidoro, Special Agent, Office of the Inspector General; Michael Kearney, Station Manager, United States Postal Service, Defendants—Appellees, and John E. Potter, United States Postmaster General, Defendant.
No. 08-1723.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2009.
Decided: March 19, 2009.
Dean E. Wanderer, Dean E. Wanderer & Associates, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, R. Joseph Sher, Catherine D. Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sami Gaber appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gaber v. Henderson, No. 1:08-cv-00076-JCC-TCB (E.D. Va. filed June 2, 2008; entered June 3, 2008). 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.
AFFIRMED.