
    Yuri J. STOYANOV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald C. WINTER, Secretary of the Navy; Stephan W. Petri, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Head of the Carderock Division; Gary M. Jebsen, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 70 Carderock Division; Kevin M. Wilson, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Acting Head of Code 74 Carderock Division; James H. King, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 74 Carderock Division; John C. Davies, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Deputy Head of Code 74 Carderock Division; Mathew Craun, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 722 Carderock Division; Paul Shang, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 72 Carderock Division; Gerald Smith, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy Head of Code 70 Carderock Division; Roger Ford, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 7014 Carderock Division; M. Kathleen Fowler, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Administrative Officer Code 709; David Caron, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Assistant Counsel Code 39; Josephine McGrath, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Complaints Manager/Acting Deputy EEO Chief Code 034, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-2040.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.
    Decided: Jan. 15, 2009.
    Yuri J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Yuri J. Stoyanov appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2000), the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 1214, 1221 and 2302 (2006), and various state law tort claims, as well as its order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. See Stoyanov v. Winter, No. l:06-cv-01244-AMD (D.Md. Aug. 11, 2008; Aug. 27, 2008). 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  