STEPHEN E. MCCLELLAND, Party in Interest - v. Johnson, No. CA-03-164-3 E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 2004 . We dismiss the

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6829
STEPHEN E. MCCLELLAND,
Party in Interest - Appellant,
and
ALLEN MCRAE; CHARLES STEVENSON; PATRICK
LAHENS; DENNIS BLYDEN; DAVID EVICK, JR.;
RASHID QAWI AL-AMIN,
Plaintiffs,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, in his official capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.
---------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Movant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-164-3)
Submitted: September 1, 2004 Decided: October 28, 2004
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Stephen E. McClelland, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, Joel
Christopher Hoppe, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Stephen E. McClelland appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to intervene filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 24. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion
in the district court’s denial of relief. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s denial of McClelland’s motion for intervention
as of right under Rule 24(a) for the reasons stated by the district
court. See McClelland v. Johnson, No. CA-03-164-3 (E.D. Va.
Apr. 20, 2004). We dismiss the appeal from the district court’s
denial of McClelland’s motion for permissive intervention under
Rule 24(b). See Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R.
Co., 331 U.S. 519, 524 (1947) (“Ordinarily, in the absence of an
abuse of discretion, no appeal lies from an order denying leave to
intervene where intervention is a permissive matter with the
discretion of the court.”). 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --