
    Clifton NICKLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine O’MALLEY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 04-1259.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 24, 2004.
    Decided: June 29, 2004.
    Clifton Nickles, Appellant pro se.
    
      Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Clifton Nickles appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nickles v. O’Malley, No. CA-04-105-CCB (D. Md.) (Jan. 21, 2004; Feb. 2, 2004). 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  