Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Anthony Prozer, III, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680 (2012). We have reviewed the issues Prozer raises in his informal opening and supplemental briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Prozer v. United States, No. 9:14-cv-01249-TMC (D.S.C. Nov. 25, 2014). We deny Prozer’s motion to stay his appeal and his motions for injunctive relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Prozer argues that the district court assessed his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), citing one such reference on the judgment form. But the magistrate judge and the district court properly analyzed Prozers claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The error on the judgment form is plainly a clerical one.