
    Brett KIMBERLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP; United States Chamber of Commerce; Palantir Technologies; Berico Technologies; Mantech International; HB Gary/federal; John Woods; Richard Wyatt; Robert Quackenboss; Greg Hoglund; Aaron Barr; Alex Karp; Matt Long; Nicholas Hallam; Matthew Steckman; Pat Ryan; Sam Kremin; John Doe Chamber of Commerce Employees; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; William Hoge; Stratio Information Technology, LLC; Bill Nickless, Defendants-Appellees.
    
      No. 16-1500
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 30, 2016
    Decided: December 7, 2016
    Brett Kimberlin, Appellant Pro Se. Barrett James Anderson, John J. Buckley, Jr., Craig Darren Singer, Williams & Connolly, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Bobby Roy Burchfield, Nicholas Andrew Oldham, Johnny H. Walker, King & Spalding, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Allen M. Gardner, Alexandra P. Shechtel, Jonathan C. Su, La-tham & Watkins, Washington, D.C.; Sara A. Solow, Latham & Watkins, New York, New York; Attison Leonard Barnes, III, Mark B. Sweet, Jennifer Stacey Zucker, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Daniel Jack Blum, Glenn Marshal Cooper, Patricia Maureen Weaver, Paley, Rothman & Cooper Chartered, Bethesda, Maryland; Kenneth Bernard Weckstein, Brown Rud-nick, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Mark Nelson Bartlett, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, Washington; Lisa Beth Zycher-man, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Aaron Justin Walker, Manas-sas, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brett Kimberlin appeals the district court’s order granting the motions to dismiss his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Kimberlin v. Hunton & Williams LLP, No. 8:15-cv-00723-GJH, 2016 WL 1270982 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2016). We deny Kimberlin’s motion to show cause. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED  