Thomas V. Prevenslik appeals the district court’s order denying relief on this qui tarn action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Prevenslik v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. CA-05-498-TSE-LO (E.D. Va. June 16, 2005). We deny the 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