Michael A. Williams appeals the district court’s order denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommen *878 dation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Haney, No. CA-01-74-2 (N.D.W.Va. Feb. 25, 2002). We deny Williams’ motions requesting Rule 44 inquiries and to stay this case. Finally, 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.