
    John D. SIMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Helen F. FAHEY, Chairperson of the Virginia Parole Board; David N. Harker, Vice-Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; Carol A. Sievers, Member of the Virginia Parole Board; Herbert V. Coulton, Member of the Virginia Parole Board; Michael M. Hawes, Member of the Virginia Parole Board; Thurgood Marshall, Director, Public Safety; Robert P. Crouch, Jr., Deputy Secretary of Public Safety; Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; John Jabe, Deputy Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; James O. Yount, Probation and Parole Officer; Doris L. Ewing, Senior Manager Court and Legal Services, Virginia Department of Corrections; Jim Sisk, Manager, Classification Court and Legal Unit, Virginia Department of Corrections; Gary Bass, Chief of Operations, Classification and Record, Virginia Department of Corrections; William P. Rogers, Regional Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Alton Baskerville, Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center; Tom Neumayer, Assistant Warden of Programs, Powhatan Correctional Center; J. Jacobs, Institutional Counselor, Powhatan Correctional Center, in their Official and Individual Capacities, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 07-6864.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 31, 2008.
    Decided: Feb. 19, 2008.
    John D. Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

John D. Simpson appeals the district coux-t’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and his motions filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Simpson v. Fahey, No. 3:04-cv-00611-REP (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 28, 2006 & entered Mar. 29, 2006; Mar. 27, 2007; Apr. 27, 2007). 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.  