Carlton McCray Thomas appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Thomas v. Reynolds, No. CA-03-718 (W.D.Va. Nov. 5, 2003). We deny Thomas’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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