#### Steven Wayne GOODMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.B. EVERETT, Warden, SIISP; D. Robinson, Regional Director, Eastern District of the DOC; Gene Johnson, Director of the DOC; K. Bassett, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center; Pixley, Assistant Warden, SIISP; Mr. Phelps, Correctional Officer, KMCC; R. Sandifer, Institutional Ombudsman, KMCC; John/Jane Doe, Regional Ombudsman, Western Region of the DOC; K. Pickerel, Assistant Warden, KMCC; L. Huffman, Regional Director, Western Region of the DOC; G. Robinson, Manager, Ombudsman Services United for the DOC; John Jabe, Deputy Director of the DOC; Hayes, Institutional Investigator, SIISP; C. Harris, Housing Unit Manager and Institutional Classification Authority-Special Housing Unit; J. Harris, Treatment Programs Supervisor; Officer Gilmore, Chief Security, SIISP; John/Jane Doe, #2, Central Classification Services for the DOC; G. Bass, Manager, Offender Management Services; Officer Barbour, Office Service Specialist, SIISP; Massenburg, Institutional Ombudsman, SIISP; W. Rollins, Operations Officer, SIISP; G. Sivels, Regional Ombudsman Eastern Region of the DOC; Nichols, Psychologist, SIISP; Rivers, Psychologist, SIISP; General, Psychiatrist, SIISP; L. Standford, Employee of Prison Health Services and Health Service Administrator at SIISP; S. Taylor, Employee of Prison Health Services and Director of Nursing at SIISP; K. Watson, Director of Audits and Regulation Compliance for Prison Health Services; C. Couther, Regional Nurse Administrator, Eastern Region of the DOC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-7384.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 29, 2011.

Decided: June 28, 2011.

Steven Wayne Goodman, Appellant pro se. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lees.

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*276PER CURIAM:

Steven Wayne Goodman appeals from the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Defendants, denying his motion for reconsideration, and denying his miscellaneous motions. We have reviewed the district court’s rulings, the record, and Goodman’s claims on appeal, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Goodman v. Everett,*No. 3:06-cv-00849-RLW (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2008; May 1, May 13 & June 18, 2009).

We also note that, while Goodman filed a Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d) affidavit seeking discovery prior to a ruling on Defendants’ summary judgment motion, Goodman’s motion failed to show that discovery would develop evidence crucial to material issues before the court. *See Program Eng’g, Inc. v. Triangle Publ’ns, Inc.,*634 F.2d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir.1980) (discussing prior version of Rule 56). Thus, the district court did not err in denying the motion. We deny Goodman’s motions for a stay and appointment of counsel, and grant his motion to amend his informal brief. 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.*