James H. Porter appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), without prejudice to his right to file a habeas corpus petition. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Porter’s claims were legally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000). Accordingly, we *856 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Porter v. Bell, No. CA-02-493-2 (E.D.Va. July 15, 2003). 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