
    William Henry HARRISON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Vanessa P. ADAMS, Warden, Petersburg Federal Correctional Complex; Joseph Brooks, Former Warden, Petersburg Federal Correctional Complex; James Cross, Former Acting Warden, FCC Petersburg; Cornelia Janzen, Legal Liaison & Administrative Remedy Coordinator, FCC Petersburg; Harley G. Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Harrell Watts, General Counsel/Administrative Remedy Coordinator, B.O.P.; Kimberley White, Mid-Atlantic Region Admin. Remedy Coordinator, B.O.P.; Denise M. Gottlieb, Mid-Atlantic Region Admin. Remedy Coordinator, B.O.P., D. Parker, Unit Manager, FCC Petersburg Medium; Mr. Crenell, Counselor, Petersburg FCC Medium; Doctor Laybourne, M.D., Petersburg FCC; Physician’s Assistance Panaguiton, P.A. at Petersburg FCC; J. Fajardo, P.A. at Petersburg FCC; P.A. Negron, P.A. or Former P.A. at Petersburg FCC; Mr. Wyrick, Unit Manager, Lee Hall, Petersburg FCC; M.T. Harding, Case Manager, Lee Hall, Petersburg FCC; M.C. Speights, Counselor, Lee Hall, Petersburg FCC; Mr. Wheeler, Counselor, Lee Hall, Petersburg FCC; Janet Morris, Supervisor of Education, Petersburg FCC, Dawn Ranke, Former Associate Warden for Programming, Petersburg FCC Low; Lieutenant Desroches, Petersburg FCC Low; Officer Blevins, Corrections Officer Petersburg FCC; Lorraine Hill, Secretary, BOP; Annette Bailey, Secretary, BOP; Officer Millemac, C.O., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 07-6497.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 31, 2007.
    Decided: Dec. 11, 2007.
    William Henry Harrison, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

William Henry Harrison appeals the district court’s orders: (1) dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000) his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971); and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harrison v. Adams, No. l:06-cv-00501-TSE (E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2007; filed Mar. 19, 2007, entered Mar. 20, 2007). 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.  