Case Name: Douglas PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janet NAPOLITANO, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; United States Department of Homeland Security; Alan Bersin, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-23
Citations: 474 F. App'x 393
Docket Number: No. 12-1448
Parties: Douglas PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janet NAPOLITANO, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; United States Department of Homeland Security; Alan Bersin, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 393–393

Head Matter:
Douglas PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janet NAPOLITANO, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; United States Department of Homeland Security; Alan Bersin, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 12-1448.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2012.
Decided: July 23, 2012.
Douglas Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellees.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Patterson appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his employment discrimination complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Patterson v. Napolitano, No. 5:11-cv-00123-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 5, 2012). 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.