PER CURIAM: Silas Mobley appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) (2006) his civil action challenging his federal convictions and seeking damages and injunctive relief. The district court properly dismissed the action because Mobley has not shown that his convictions have been overturned or called into question. See Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (holding that a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) suit for monetary damages is barred if prevailing in the action would necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the unlawfulness of his conviction); Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir.2002) (applying Heck to claims for injunctive relief), abrogated on other grounds by Skinner v. Switzer, — U.S. -, ---, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 1298-1300, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011); Clemente v. Allen, 120 F.3d 703, 705 (7th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (stating that the rationale in Heck applies to actions under 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)). However, we modify the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice to Mobley’s ability to re-file his claims if his federal convictions are overturned or called into question by the appropriate court and affirm the order as modified. 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 AS MODIFIED.