Paul Graham appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint. The district court stated that the document was a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) complaint, but because Graham is not challenging a conviction or sentence, the claim is more properly construed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). Nonetheless, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Graham v. District Court, No. 1:06-cv-02038-CCB (D.Md. Aug. 22, 2006). We deny Graham’s motions for appointment of counsel and oral argument. 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.

2.