UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1900

ALEKSANDR J. STOYANOV,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

DONALD C. WINTER, Secretary of the Navy; STEPHAN W. PETRI, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of the Carderock Division; GARY M. JEBSEN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 70; GERALD SMITH, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy Head of Code 70 Carderock Division; M. KATHLEEN FOWLER, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Administrative Officer Code 709; KEVIN M. WILSON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 74; JAMES H. KING, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 74 Carderock Division; JOHN C. DAVIES, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Deputy Head of Code 74; STEPHAN M. FARLEY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 741; ROGER P. FORD, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Head of Code 7014 Carderock Division; DAVID CARON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Assistant Counsel Code 39,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06- cv-01245-AMD)

Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 17, 2009

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aleksandr J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Aleksandr J. Stoyanov appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2006),

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended,

to 634 (2006), the Whistleblower Protection

Act,

, 1221 and 2302 (2006), and various state

law tort claims, as well as its order denying his Fed. R. Civ.

P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s orders. See Stoyanov v. Winter, No. 1:06-cv-

01245-AMD (D. Md. July 6, 2009; July 14, 2009). 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

3