Case Name: Ronnie Joe VANZANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Berry WEISSGLASS; Dr. Theodolph Jacobs; Karen Huffman, Physician Assistant, Defendants-Appellees, and Carolina Center for Occupational Health; Director Dawn Frazier; Nurse Michael Murry, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-06
Citations: 692 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 17-6032
Parties: Ronnie Joe VANZANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Berry WEISSGLASS; Dr. Theodolph Jacobs; Karen Huffman, Physician Assistant, Defendants-Appellees, and Carolina Center for Occupational Health; Director Dawn Frazier; Nurse Michael Murry, Defendants.
Judges: Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 728–729

Head Matter:
Ronnie Joe VANZANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Berry WEISSGLASS; Dr. Theodolph Jacobs; Karen Huffman, Physician Assistant, Defendants-Appellees, and Carolina Center for Occupational Health; Director Dawn Frazier; Nurse Michael Murry, Defendants.
No. 17-6032
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2017
Decided: July 6, 2017
Ronnie Joe Vanzant, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Willcox Buyck, Gordon Wade Cooper, BUYCK SANDERS & SIMMONS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Joe Vanzant appeals the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to the Defendants on Vanzant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and the court's order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Vanzant v. Weissglass, No. 8:15-cv-02876-RBH, 2016 WL 4607595 (D.S.C., Sept. 6, 2016 & Dec. 19, 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