George Roger SIEGEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARLINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT, and Its Agencies; Crescent Resources, LLC; Frank Lasch, Mid/Atlantic Property Manager; Arlington County Circuit Court, 17th Circuit Court and its Judges and Staff; United States Civil Rights Commission; Secretary of the United States Department Of The Interior; Unknown Agents, and Officers of Department of the Interior; Commonwealth of Virginia; Arlington County, Virginia; Commonwealth Atlantic Properties, Incorporated; Crescent Potomac Properties, LLC; Edward M. Smith, c/o BM Smith & Associates, Defendants-Appellees; George Roger Siegel, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arlington County Department of Community Planning Housing and Development, and Its Agencies; Crescent Resources, LLC; Frank Lasch, Mid/Atlantic Property Manager; Arlington County Circuit Court, 17th Circuit Court and its Judges and Staff; United States Civil Rights Commission; Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; Unknown Agents, and Officers of Department of the Interior, Commonwealth of Virginia; Arlington County, Virginia; Commonwealth Atlantic Properties, Incorporated; Crescent Potomac Properties, LLC; Edward M. Smith, c/o BM Smith & Associates, Defendants-Appellees

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, George Roger Siegel appeals two orders of the district court. In No. 03-1057, he challenges the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Tillman v. Resolution Trust Corp., 37 F.3d 1032, 1034 (4th Cir.1994). Having reviewed the record and finding no reversible error, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Siegel v. Arlington County Dep’t of Community Planning, No. CA-02-902 A (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 2, 2002 & entered Dec. 5, 2002).

In No. 03-1220, Siegel appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(a), (b)(4). We review denial of a motion to correct a clerical mistake, Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(a), for abuse of discretion. Kocher v. Dow Chem. Co., 132 F.3d 1225, 1229 (8th Cir.1997). We find no such abuse of discretion. Siegel also moved for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4), asserting that the judgment was void. We review Rule 60(b)(4) motions de novo. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137, 142 (5th Cir.1996). Having reviewed Siegel’s allegations and the district court’s ruling de novo, we conclude that the district court’s order dismissing the action was not void or otherwise subject to attack.

We deny Siegel’s motion to remand. 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.