Case Name: Thomas V. PREVENSLIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE; James E. Rogan; John R. Lee; Bernard E. Souw, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-24
Citations: 182 F. App'x 197
Docket Number: No. 05-1914
Parties: Thomas V. PREVENSLIK, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE; James E. Rogan; John R. Lee; Bernard E. Souw, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 182
Pages: 197–198

Head Matter:
Thomas V. PREVENSLIK, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE; James E. Rogan; John R. Lee; Bernard E. Souw, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-1914.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 28, 2006.
Decided May 24, 2006.
Thomas V. Prevenslik, Appellant Pro Se. Gerard John Mene, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Thomas V. Prevenslik appeals the district court's order denying relief on this qui tarn action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Prevenslik v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. CA-05-498-TSE-LO (E.D. Va. June 16, 2005). We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and 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