PER CURIAM:
Shango Damballah appeals the district court order and judgment adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissing his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record, the district court order and the claims raised on appeal, and affirm. The timing of the psychological examination was not improper and Damballah was not entitled to a second hearing prior to his parole being rescinded. See Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14, 19-20, 102 S.Ct. 31, 70 L.Ed.2d 13 (1981). Nor was Damballah entitled to treatment by the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services because he was not under the Department's supervision. Finally, insofar as Damballah challenges the September 3, 2008, 2008 WL 4159203, denial of parole, this issue was not raised below and is not reviewable by this court. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976).
Accordingly, we affirm. 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.