Case ID: f-appx_43/html/0664-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mark CORRIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ms. ATKINS; Ms. Bollot; Dr. Cervie; Pitt County; Wilson County; Sergeant Bailey; Officer Barns; Howard Adams; Diana Carmack; Katharina Dewald, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-6367.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 9, 2002.
    Decided Aug. 22, 2002.
    Mark Corrigan, Appellant Pro Se. JoAnne Keeler Burgdorff, Pitt County Legal Department, Greenville, North Carolina; Tommy Willis Jarrett, Dees, Smith, Powell, Jarrett, Dees & Jones, Goldsboro, North Carolina; Deanna Davis Anderson, John Dale Madden, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, Raleigh, North Carolina; G. Christopher Olson, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Raleigh, North Carolina; Edwin Constant Bryson, Jr., Patterson, Dilthey, Clay & Bryson, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Mark Corrigan appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint, denying his motions for reconsideration, and denying his motion to amend the complaint and to retain an expert witness. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny § 1983 relief and find no reversible error. Nor do we find any error in the district court’s denial of Corrigan’s motions for reconsideration, to amend the complaint, and to retain an expert witness. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Corrigan v. Atkins, No. CA-98-667-5-CT (E.D.N.C. Dec. 28, 1998; Feb. 23, 1999; Feb. 24, 2000; Sept. 27, 2000; Oct. 24, 2000; Feb. 12, 2002). 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. 
      
       Corrigan is a federal inmate. Thus, his action is more appropriately construed as one under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).