Case Name: Cedric Dion FUNDERBURK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wallings D. VREELAND, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-31
Citations: 53 F. App'x 311
Docket Number: No. 02-6946
Parties: Cedric Dion FUNDERBURK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wallings D. VREELAND, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 53
Pages: 311–312

Head Matter:
Cedric Dion FUNDERBURK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wallings D. VREELAND, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-6946.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2002.
Decided Dec. 31, 2002.
Cedric Dion Funderburk, Appellant Pro Se. Dana Hefter Davis, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
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.