Case Name: Bennie Jay EATMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B.D. MORGAN, Incorporated; Billy D. Morgan, individually; E.L. Ross, Incorporated; Mackie Rogers, individually; Billy Ellington, individually; Phil Hicks, individually; Federal Crop Insurance Corporation; John Doe; Jane Jannell Doe, Rn, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-20
Citations: 145 F. App'x 839
Docket Number: No. 05-1306
Parties: Bennie Jay EATMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B.D. MORGAN, Incorporated; Billy D. Morgan, individually; E.L. Ross, Incorporated; Mackie Rogers, individually; Billy Ellington, individually; Phil Hicks, individually; Federal Crop Insurance Corporation; John Doe; Jane Jannell Doe, Rn, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 145
Pages: 839–840

Head Matter:
Bennie Jay EATMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B.D. MORGAN, Incorporated; Billy D. Morgan, individually; E.L. Ross, Incorporated; Mackie Rogers, individually; Billy Ellington, individually; Phil Hicks, individually; Federal Crop Insurance Corporation; John Doe; Jane Jannell Doe, Rn, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-1306.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 3, 2005.
Decided Oct. 20, 2005.
Bennie Jay Eatmon, Appellant Pro Se. Franklin LeVerne Adams, Jr., Valentine, Adams & Lamar, L.L.P., Nashville, North Carolina; Derek Morgan Crump, Brown, Crump, Vanore & Tierney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bennie Jay Eatmon appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment and dismissing his civil action. He also appeals the district court's denial of his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Eatmon v. B.D. Morgan, Inc., No. 5:02-CV-745-BO(3) (E.D.N.C. Mar. 16, 2004); Eatmon v. B.D. Morgan, Inc., No. 5:02-CV-745-BO(3) (E.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2005). We deny Eatmon's motion to stay. 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