
    Adam J. CIRALSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George J. TENET, individually and in his capacity as Director of Central Intelligence; Louis Joseph Freeh, in his capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Robert McNamara, Jr., individually and in his capacity as the General Counsel Central Intelligence Agency; John Doe, individually and in his capacity as the Chief, Counterintelligence Center, CIA; Edward Curran, individually and in his capacity as Chief, Counterintelligence Group, CIA; John Lewis, individually and in his capacity as Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Richard Calder, individually and in his capacity as Deputy Director for Administration, CIA; Dawn Eilenberger, individually and in her capacity as the Principal Deputy General Counsel, CIA; Kathleen McGinn, individually and in her capacity as Complaints Attorney, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, CIA, Defendants—Appellees, and Central Intelligence Agency; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants.
    No. 10-2414.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 15, 2011.
    Decided: Dec. 20, 2011.
    Richard L. Swick, David H. Shapiro, Ellen K. Renaud, Swick & Shapiro, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, R. Joseph Sher, Assistant United States Attorney, Douglas N. Letter, Dana Kaersvang, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Adam J. Ciralsky appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint alleging various causes of action under 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), for violations of his constitutional rights and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2006). All of Ciralsky’s claims arise from the revocation of his security clearance and his subsequent termination from federal employment. The district court dismissed Ciral-sky’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim, based on qualified immunity, and as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.  