Case Name: Bart Fitzgerald McCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jay CARTER, Lieutenant; Bruce C. Carpenter, Correctional Officer; Cody Blake Stewart, Correctional Officer; Officer Edwards; Officer Fox, Defendants-Appellee, and North Carolina Department of Corrections, Avery-Mitchell Facility, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-21
Citations: 117 F. App'x 887
Docket Number: No. 04-7220
Parties: Bart Fitzgerald McCLAIN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jay CARTER, Lieutenant; Bruce C. Carpenter, Correctional Officer; Cody Blake Stewart, Correctional Officer; Officer Edwards; Officer Fox, Defendants—Appellee, and North Carolina Department of Corrections, Avery-Mitchell Facility, Defendant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 887–888

Head Matter:
Bart Fitzgerald McCLAIN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jay CARTER, Lieutenant; Bruce C. Carpenter, Correctional Officer; Cody Blake Stewart, Correctional Officer; Officer Edwards; Officer Fox, Defendants—Appellee, and North Carolina Department of Corrections, Avery-Mitchell Facility, Defendant.
No. 04-7220.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.
Decided Dec. 21, 2004.
Bart Fitzgerald McClain, Appellant pro se. James Philip Allen, Roy Asberry Cooper, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Bart Fitzgerald McClain appeals the district court's order denying his motion to compel and his motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint, and dismissing McClain's civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McClain v. Carter, No. CA-01-20-1-MU (W.D.N.C. July 15, 2004). 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.