Mark CORRIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ms. ATKINS; Ms. Bollot; Dr. Cervie; Pitt County; Wilson County; Sergeant Bailey; Officer Barns; Howard Adams; Diana Carmack; Katharina Dewald, Defendants-Appellees, 43 F. App'x 664

PER CURIAM. Mark Corrigan appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint, denying his motions for reconsideration, and denying his motion to amend the complaint and to retain an expert witness. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny § 1983 relief and find no reversible error. Nor do we find any error in the district court’s denial of Corrigan’s motions for reconsideration, to amend the complaint, and to retain an expert witness.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Corrigan v. Atkins, No. CA-98-667-5-CT (E.D.N.C. Dec. 28, 1998; Feb. 23, 1999; Feb. 24, 2000; Sept. 27, 2000; Oct. 24, 2000; Feb. 12, 2002). 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. Corrigan is a federal inmate. Thus, his action is more appropriately construed as one under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).