
    Gerald Davis FULLER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mary Ann SAAR, Secretary; William W. Sondervan, Ed.D., Commissioner; J. Michael Stouffer, Warden, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 03-7848.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 4, 2004.
    Decided Feb. 18, 2004.
    Gerald Davis Fuller, Appellant pro se.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed as modified by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Gerald Davis Fuller appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), and denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion, in which he challenges the district court’s construction of his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error.

Fuller’s underlying complaint and motion for reconsideration make clear that he is challenging the validity of an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or sentence, either or both, and that he seeks release from incarceration. However, because Fuller did not make any showing that his conviction has been successfully challenged or overturned, his § 1983 complaint was subject to dismissal pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 complaint on that basis.

In addition, we find that the district court’s denial of Fuller’s Rule 59(e) motion was not an abuse of discretion. Temkin v. Frederick County Comm’rs, 945 F.2d 716, 724 (4th Cir.1991). 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 AS MODIFIED  