Funderburk v. Vreeland , 53 F. App'x 311 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6946
CEDRIC DION FUNDERBURK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WALLINGS D. VREELAND,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CA-01-154-1)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 31, 2002
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cedric Dion Funderburk, Appellant Pro Se. Dana Hefter Davis,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Cedric Dion Funderburk appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed
the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Funderburk v. Vreeland, No. CA-01-154-1 (M.D.N.C. June 5, 2002).
We deny Funderburk’s motions for summons, for the request of
production of documents, for equal protection, for the appointment
of counsel, “to bring ARA into its jurisdiction as allowed by law
or grant diversity jurisdiction or amend service to ARA,” to grant
joinder without delay, to grant trial by jury, for compensatory
relief in excess of $150,000, for mental anguish relief in excess
of $150,000, for monetary relief in excess of $150,000, for
exemplary relief in excess of $100,000, for breach of contract
relief in excess of $500,000, for parties to offer fair and just
settlement, for “any other relief such as punitive the Court
deem[s] just,” and all other pending motions. 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