Case Name: David E. HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harvie WILKINSON, Chief Judge; Paul V. Niemeyer, U.S. Circuit Judge; Michael, U.S. Circuit Judge; Widener, U.S. Circuit Judge; Diana G. Motz, U.S. Circuit Judge; Robert B. King, U.S. Circuit Judge; Dennis W. Shedd, U.S. Circuit Judge; T.S. Ellis, III, U.S. District Judge; Claude M. Hilton, U.S. District Judge, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-24
Citations: 594 F. App'x 146
Docket Number: No. 14-7500
Parties: David E. HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harvie WILKINSON, Chief Judge; Paul V. Niemeyer, U.S. Circuit Judge; Michael, U.S. Circuit Judge; Widener, U.S. Circuit Judge; Diana G. Motz, U.S. Circuit Judge; Robert B. King, U.S. Circuit Judge; Dennis W. Shedd, U.S. Circuit Judge; T.S. Ellis, III, U.S. District Judge; Claude M. Hilton, U.S. District Judge, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 146–147

Head Matter:
David E. HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harvie WILKINSON, Chief Judge; Paul V. Niemeyer, U.S. Circuit Judge; Michael, U.S. Circuit Judge; Widener, U.S. Circuit Judge; Diana G. Motz, U.S. Circuit Judge; Robert B. King, U.S. Circuit Judge; Dennis W. Shedd, U.S. Circuit Judge; T.S. Ellis, III, U.S. District Judge; Claude M. Hilton, U.S. District Judge, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-7500.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 18, 2015.
Decided: Feb. 24, 2015.
David E. Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David E. Hill appeals the district court's order dismissing his Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), action without prejudice, and the court's subsequent order denying Hill's Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment and to amend his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hill v. Wilkinson, No. 2:13-cv-00127-RAJ-DEM (E.D.Va. Feb. 3, 2014 & Sept. 22, 2014). 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.