
    William D. AMOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION; Dolores Esser, Commissioner, Virginia Employment Commission; Bill Jacobs, Assistant Commissioner for Field Operations, Virginia Employment Commission; Woody Tucker, Chief of Benefits, Virginia Employment Commission; Aundy Holland, Regional Director, Virginia Employment Commission, Petersburg/Tri-Cities Field Office; Linda Daniel, Field Office Manager, Virginia Employment Commission, South Boston Field Office; Kristina Skeldon, Assistant Field Office Manager/Hearing Officer, Virginia Employment Commission, Farmville Field Office; Diane Wilmouth, Assistant Field Office Manager, Workforce Services Representative, Virginia Employment Commission, South Boston Field Office; Sally Henderson, Hearing Officer, Virginia Employment Commission, Lynchburg Field Office; Barbara Weeks Smith, Hearing Officer, Virginia Employment Commission, Danville Field Office, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 05-2226.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 21, 2006.
    Decided: Aug. 17, 2006.
    William D. Amos, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Nicholas Regnery, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

William D. Amos appeals the district court’s orders denying Amos’ motion to amend, granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, and denying Amos’ motions for reconsideration in this civil action against his former employer and several individual defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Amos v. Virginia Employment Comm’n, No. CA-05-5-JLK, 2005 WL 2010156, 2005 WL 2333471 (W.D.Va. July 13, Aug. 19 & Sept. 23, 2005). 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.  