Stephen E. McClelland appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to intervene filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of McClelland’s motion for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) for the reasons stated by the district court. See McClelland v. Johnson, No. CA-03-164-3 (E.D.Va. Apr. 20, 2004). We dismiss the appeal from the district court’s denial of McClelland’s motion for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). See Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 524, 67 S.Ct. 1387, 91 L.Ed. 1646 (1947) (“Ordinarily, in the absence of an abuse of discretion, no appeal lies from an order denying leave to intervene where intervention is a permissive matter with the discretion of the court.”). 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART