Case Name: Willie Foster SELLERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth E. MELSON, 1st Assistant United States Attorney; Barbara Walker, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney; Paul Lanteigne, Sheriff; Mark Mustin, Chief Deputy; G.F. Driscoll, Deputy Librarian, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-12
Citations: 55 F. App'x 694
Docket Number: No. 02-7639
Parties: Willie Foster SELLERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth E. MELSON, 1st Assistant United States Attorney; Barbara Walker, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney; Paul Lanteigne, Sheriff; Mark Mustin, Chief Deputy; G.F. Driscoll, Deputy Librarian, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 694–695

Head Matter:
Willie Foster SELLERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth E. MELSON, 1st Assistant United States Attorney; Barbara Walker, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney; Paul Lanteigne, Sheriff; Mark Mustin, Chief Deputy; G.F. Driscoll, Deputy Librarian, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-7639.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.
Decided Feb. 12, 2003.
Willie Foster Sellers, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Judge Wilkins did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2000).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Willie Foster Sellers appeals the district court's orders denying him relief in his action alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Sellers v. Melson, No. CA-01-545-2 (E.D.Va. Nov. 9, 2001; Sept. 23, 2002). 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.