Case Name: Darrell J. DeBREW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brandon BROOKS; P. Collins; Lt. Dodson; C. Eichenlaub; Mrs. Faucett; Glenn O. Ford; Candice Gregory; Tracy Johns; Camille Johnson; Harley Lappin; Lt. Rodenbaugh; Harrell Watts; K.M. White; John Doe, Mail Room Employee; Hank Paulson; John Doe, Treasury Department Employee, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-20
Citations: 475 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 12-6583
Parties: Darrell J. DeBREW, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Brandon BROOKS; P. Collins; Lt. Dodson; C. Eichenlaub; Mrs. Faucett; Glenn O. Ford; Candice Gregory; Tracy Johns; Camille Johnson; Harley Lappin; Lt. Rodenbaugh; Harrell Watts; K.M. White; John Doe, Mail Room Employee; Hank Paulson; John Doe, Treasury Department Employee, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
Darrell J. DeBREW, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Brandon BROOKS; P. Collins; Lt. Dodson; C. Eichenlaub; Mrs. Faucett; Glenn O. Ford; Candice Gregory; Tracy Johns; Camille Johnson; Harley Lappin; Lt. Rodenbaugh; Harrell Watts; K.M. White; John Doe, Mail Room Employee; Hank Paulson; John Doe, Treasury Department Employee, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 12-6583.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 16, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 20, 2012.
Darrell James DeBrew, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell James DeBrew appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to 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), and denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. DeBrew v. Brooks, No. 5:10-ct-03198-D (E.D.N.C. July 22, 2011 & Jan. 24, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal eon-tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Although we decline to find that DeBrew's challenges to his disciplinary convictions are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), we have reviewed the merits of De-Brew's claims and agree that he fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.