Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Saunders v. North Carolina, No. CA-99-47-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 17, 2003). With regard to Saunders’ due process claim, our review of the record leads us to conclude that no constitutional violation occurred. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”). 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.