
    Warren B. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, WASHINGTON, DC; Thomas P. Marzille, Special Agent, Naval Criminal Investigation Service, Camp Lejeune, NC; James Durvin, Special Agent, Naval Criminal Investigation Service, Camp Lejeune, NC; B.T. Babin, Colonel, United States Marine Corps, NC; N.T. Hartenstein, Colonel, United States Marine Corps, NC; William Michael Brown, Captain, United States Marine Corps, NC; James Woodworth, Captain, United States Marine Corps, NC; James T. McColgan, III, Captain, United States Marine Corps, NC; Laughinghouse, Colonel, Staff Judge Advocate, United States Marine Corps, NC; J.A. Bukauskas, Major, United States Marine Corps, NC; P.G. Howard, General, Covening Authority, Marine Corps Base, North Carolina; Dale E. Anderson, Major, Appellate Division, United States Marine Corps, Washington, DC; Mark Stevens, Colonel, Retired United States Marine Corps, NC; Connie Crocker, Department of Social Service, Jacksonville, NC; Geolf Engelstetter, Dr., Clinical Psychologist, Jacksonville, NC; James L. Jones, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-2029.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 16, 2002.
    Decided Dec. 19, 2002.
    
      Warren B. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Mark Allen Davis, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Raleigh, North Carolina; Scott Christopher Hart, Sumrell, Sugg, Carmichael, Hicks & Hart, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Warren B. Anderson appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss his civil action stemming from a previous military court conviction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. United States Sec’y of the Navy, No. CA-01-224-7-F-1 (E.D.N.C. June 28, 2002). 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.  