
    Paul Renfro HARBISON Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth T. CUCCINELLI, II, Ex Rel. Commonwealth of Virginia, in his official capacity as Attorney General; Bobby S. Mims, as former Attorney General of Virginia; Senior Judge Clements, Court of Appeals; Judge Powell, Court of Appeals; Judge Humphreys; Judge David Beck, as Spotsylvania Circuit Court Chief Presiding Judge; Joseph Ellis, as Spotsylvania County Circuit Court Judge; Edith M. Min, as former Deputy Prosecutor, Spotsylvania County; John C. Bowers, as Deputy Prosecutor, Spotsylvania County; Matthew B. Lowrey, as Deputy Prosecutor, Spotsylvania County; William Neely, as Prosecutor, Spotsylvania County; Larry K. Pritchett, as Treasurer, Spotsylvania County; Deborah Williams, as Commissioner of Revenue, Spotsylvania County; Wade Kizer, as Commonwealth Attorney, Henrico County; Warner Chapman, as Commonwealth Attorney for Charlottesville, VA; Bradley Finch, as Commonwealth Attorney for Montgomery County; Saitama District Public Prosecutors Office, Saitama Prefecture, Japan as itself; Junko Ezure, a/k/a Junko Harbison, as herself; Makoto Ezure; Megumi Ezure, as herself, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-2096.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 24, 2011.
    Decided: Feb. 28, 2011.
    Paul Renfro Harbison, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Christy Monolo, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, William Daniel Prince, Thompson McMullan PC, Richmond, Virginia, William Joseph Owen, III, Owens & Owens, PLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Paul Renfro Harbison, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint alleging various equal protection and due process violations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harbison v. Cuccinelli, No. 3:10-cv-00297-REP, 2010 WL 3655977 (E.D.Va. Sept. 10, 2010). 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.  