Barry Hall appeals the district court’s orders denying rehef on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and his subsequent motions to amend his complaint, to alter judgment, and for rehef from judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hall v. Edmonds, No. CA-04-136 (W.D.Va. Mar. 24 and Apr. 16, 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