UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1397 ALVIN MOSIER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; ROBERT F. MCDONNELL, in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia; MARIA GRAFF DECKER, in her official capacity as the Virginia Department of Corrections Secretary of Public Safety; THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HAROLD W. CLARKE, in his individual and official capacity as Director; CITY OF FAIRFAX; FAIRFAX COUNTY; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA; SHARON BULOVA, in her individual and official capacity as member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; JOHN C. COOKE, in his individual and official capacity as member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; JOHN FOUST, in his individual and official capacity as member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; CATHERINE M. HUDGINS, in her individual and official capacity as member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; JEFFREY C. MCKAY, in his individual and official capacity as member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; PENELOPE A. GROSS, in her individual and official capacity as member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; GERALD W. HYLAND, in his individual and official capacity as member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; LINDA Q. SMYTH, in her individual and official capacity as member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; PAT HERRITY, in his individual and official capacity as member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; MICHAEL R. FREY, in his individual and official capacity as member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; SHIRLEY M. STANLEY, in her individual and official capacity as Acting Regional Director, Central Regional Office over District 29 of Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections Probation and Parole Central Region; R. FORREST POWELL, in his individual and official capacity as Regional Director over District 29 of Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections Probation and Parole Central Region; TRACY LAVELY, in her individual and official capacity as Chief Probation and Parole Officer of Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections Probation and Parole District 29 Fairfax, Fairfax County, VA; MARK GRAZIANO, in his individual and official capacity as Deputy Chief Probation and Parole Officer, Steven Berger's Supervisor, Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections Probation and Parole District 29 Fairfax, Fairfax County, VA; HERMENE ROCAMORA, in her individual and official capacity as Deputy Chief Probation and Parole Officer, Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections Probation and Parole District 29, Fairfax, Fairfax County, VA; STEVEN E. BERGER, in his individual and official capacity as Probation and Parole Officer, Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections Probation and Parole District 29 Fairfax, Fairfax County, VA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-01381-CMH-TCB) Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvin Mosier, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Julia Bougie Judkins, BANCROFT, MCGAVIN, HORVATH & JUDKINS, PC, Fairfax, Virginia; Kimberly Pace Baucom, Assistant County Attorney, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Alvin Mosier appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Mosier’s motions to strike briefs and motion for a certification of question and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mosier v. Virginia, No. 1:11-cv-01381-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. Feb. 23, 2012). 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 3