Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06917/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06917-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6917

DEREK HENDRICKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MR. CASINA, Medical Supervisor; DOCTOR OWENS; NURSE NELSON,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

SUPERINTENDENT KORNEGAY; MR. HAWKINS; DR. DAVIS; MS. 

HARRELL, Assistant Superintendent,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,

Chief District Judge. (5:13-ct-03090-D)

Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 19, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, Special 

Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Ginger Bagley 

Hunsucker, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North 

Carolina; Kelly Street Brown, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG 

Appeal: 16-6917 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/19/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6917 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/19/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Derek Hendricks appeals the district court’s orders

granting Defendants summary judgment on Hendricks’ 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) complaint, in which Hendricks alleged an Eighth 

Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to his serious 

medical condition, and denying Hendricks’ postjudgment motion 

for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See Hendricks v. Casina, No. 5:13-ct03090-D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 2015 & June 23, 2016). 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

Appeal: 16-6917 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/19/2017 Pg: 3 of 3