Case Name: Kevin Michael SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, and Dr. Patriba Chittra Medda, a/k/a Petriba Chittra Medda, a/k/a Chitra Medda, a/k/a Chiddra Medda, a/k/a Chittra Medda, VMAC Salisbury and Chrlotte Clinic 1601 Brenner Ave Salisbury, NC 28144, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-19
Citations: 352 F. App'x 779
Docket Number: No. 09-1651
Parties: Kevin Michael SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee, and Dr. Patriba Chittra Medda, a/k/a Petriba Chittra Medda, a/k/a Chitra Medda, a/k/a Chiddra Medda, a/k/a Chittra Medda, VMAC Salisbury and Chrlotte Clinic 1601 Brenner Ave Salisbury, NC 28144, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 352
Pages: 779–779

Head Matter:
Kevin Michael SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee, and Dr. Patriba Chittra Medda, a/k/a Petriba Chittra Medda, a/k/a Chitra Medda, a/k/a Chiddra Medda, a/k/a Chittra Medda, VMAC Salisbury and Chrlotte Clinic 1601 Brenner Ave Salisbury, NC 28144, Defendant.
No. 09-1651.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2009.
Decided: Nov. 19, 2009.
Kevin Michael Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Sidney P. Alexander, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Michael Smith appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Smith's Federal Tort Claims Act suit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. United States, No. 3:08-cv-00427-MR-DCK, 2009 WL 1564145 (W.D.N.C. June 2, 2009). We grant Smith's motion to supplement the record and deny the remainder of Smith's 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.