UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1766 GARY PHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. B. ELLIS, Patrol Section; WINTER HILL APARTMENT; DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT; SOCIAL SECURITY DISTRICT OFFICE; LOCK WOOD HOUSE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-96-183-A) Submitted: August 20, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996 Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Pham, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony D. Dawyer, Columbia, Mary- land; Ann Gouldin Killalea, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Fairfax, Virginia; Constance Harriett Frogale, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Steven Dewey Briglia, BRIGLIA & WRIGHT, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss Appellant's claim that he was being victimized and that the Defendants were part of a conspiracy to further this victimization. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and find no reversible error. Appellant's complaint fails to satisfy any of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Appellant makes no assertions as to why the federal court has jurisdiction, nor does he raise any federal questions or con- stitutional issues. Furthermore, Appellant's complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted and therefore was properly dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Finally, Appellant fails to make any specific request for relief in his complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. Pham v. Ellis, No. CA-96-183-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 1996). 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 2