David S. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND; Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Governor; Robert M. Bell, Chief Judge; Davis, Appellate Judge; Byrnes, Appellate Judge; John J. Bishop, Jr.; Appellate Judge; Sonner, Appellate Judge; Greene, Appellate Judge; Robert F. Fischer, Appellate Judge; C.J. Murphy, Appellate Judge; Krauser, Appellate Judge; Raymond G. Thieme, Jr., Appellate Judge; Lawrence F. Rodowsky, Appellate Judge; James S. Getty, Appellate Judge; William W. Wenner, Appellate Judge; Gary G. Leasure, Judge; J. Frederick Sharer, Judge; Fred A. Thayer, Judge; Lawrence V. Kelly, State's Attorney; Robert A. Cohen, Assistant State's Attorney; Michael O. Twigg, Assistant State's Attorney; Raymond Strubin, Assistant Public Defender; Ramon Rozas, Assistant Public Defender; James E. Malone, Assistant Public Defender; Sherrie B. Glasser, Assistant Public Defender; Scott Whitney, Assistant Public Defender; Brian J. Murphy, Public Defender Appointed Counsel; Frank C. Sizer, Jr., Commissioner of Correction; Jon P. Galley, Warden; Allegany County, Maryland; John Doe, Warden; City of Cumberland, Maryland; John Doe, Chief of Police; John Doe, Cumberland City Police Officer (1); John Doe, Cumberland City Police Officer (2); John Doe, Cumberland City Police Officer (3); James Hott, Cumberland City Police Officer; Steve Shellhaus, Cumberland City Police Officer; Wade Sibley, Cumberland City Police Officer; Cumberland City Police Department; United States Postal Service; John E. Potter, Postmaster General; M. Colaiacovo, Postal Inspector, Defendants-Appellees, 241 F. App'x 971

PER CURIAM: David S. Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson v. Maryland, Nos. 1:06-cv-02781-WMN; 1:07-cv-00403-WMN (D.Md., May 14, 2007). 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.