Robert Thomas PAYNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michelle K. LEE, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office; Rinaldi Rada, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Sarah Monfeldt, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Tom Hammond, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Stephen Johnson, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Kathy Matecki, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Anne Mendez, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Captain Everette Bradford, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Patrol Victor Harvey, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Kelly Hensley, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Kevin Lewis, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Joe Burns, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Alexandria Police Agents, Police Department, Alexandria Virginia; Homeland Security Agents, Homeland Security; Inspector General, Department of Commerce; James Payne, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Sarah Harris, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Frederick Steckler, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Dominick Muracco, Department of Commerce, OIG; Cecelia Wilson, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Karen W. Karlinchak, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Mark Krieger, Department of Commerce, OIG; Jennifer R. Seifert, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Maria Campo, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Sharreiff Nasid, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Brian Cedar, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Andrew Faile, United States Patent and Trademark Office; Agent Corey Johnson, Home Land Security, Defendants-Appellees, 676 F. App'x 217

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Thomas Payne appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to 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. Payne v. Lee, No. 1:15-cv-01268-CMH-IDD, 2016 WL 4009820 (E.D. Va. July 26, 2016).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED