Case Name: Harry Waldo NICKELSON, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals; Leon J. Schachter, Director of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, Defendants - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-30
Citations: 103 F. App'x 739
Docket Number: No. 03-2368
Parties: Harry Waldo NICKELSON, Jr., Plaintiff — Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals; Leon J. Schachter, Director of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, Defendants — Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 739–739

Head Matter:
Harry Waldo NICKELSON, Jr., Plaintiff — Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals; Leon J. Schachter, Director of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, Defendants — Appellees.
No. 03-2368.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 16, 2004.
Decided: July 30, 2004.
Dawn Lee Serafine, Bryan Heaton Schempf, Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly, P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant.
Alcides Ortiz, Associate General Counsel, Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Mark B. Stern, Joshua Wald-man, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Harry Waldo Nickelson, Jr., appeals the district court's order dismissing for failure to state a claim his complaint arising out of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals' failure to renew Nickelson's security clearance. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nickelson v. United States, No. CA-03-51-4 (E.D.Va. Sept. 26, 2003). We grant Nickelson's unopposed motion to take judicial notice of statutes and administrative materials filed as an appendix to his brief. 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