Matthew R. Pritchard appeals from the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Pritchard v. Dellinger, No. CA-03-383-3-MU-2 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 2003). We deny Pritchard’s motions to amend the caption, for appointment of counsel, and for costs and fees, and 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