Case Name: David CRUMP, a/k/a David Lee Crump, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doctor ARGARWAL, Deputy Director of N.C. Department of Corrections Healthcare; Boyd Bennett, Director for N.C. Department of Corrections; Carlton B. Joyner, Director of Case Management; Steve Bailey, Western Regional Area Director for N.C. Department of Corrections; Sid Harkelroad, a/k/a Sidney Harkelroad, Superintendent at Marion Correctional Institution, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-08
Citations: 333 F. App'x 721
Docket Number: No. 08-8542
Parties: David CRUMP, a/k/a David Lee Crump, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Doctor ARGARWAL, Deputy Director of N.C. Department of Corrections Healthcare; Boyd Bennett, Director for N.C. Department of Corrections; Carlton B. Joyner, Director of Case Management; Steve Bailey, Western Regional Area Director for N.C. Department of Corrections; Sid Harkelroad, a/k/a Sidney Harkelroad, Superintendent at Marion Correctional Institution, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 721–722

Head Matter:
David CRUMP, a/k/a David Lee Crump, Sr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Doctor ARGARWAL, Deputy Director of N.C. Department of Corrections Healthcare; Boyd Bennett, Director for N.C. Department of Corrections; Carlton B. Joyner, Director of Case Management; Steve Bailey, Western Regional Area Director for N.C. Department of Corrections; Sid Harkelroad, a/k/a Sidney Harkelroad, Superintendent at Marion Correctional Institution, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-8542.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 8, 2009.
David Crump, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Crump appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Crump v. Argarwal, No. 1:08-cv-00495-GCM (W.D.N.C. Dec. 1, 2008). We deny Crump's pending motion to compel. 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.