Case Name: Clarence ROULHAC, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B.S. JANEK, DMD, Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center, Defendant-Appellee, and Prison Health Services; Linda Ray, Ms., Head Nurse, Powhatan Correctional Center; L. Kump, Ms., Doctor, Powhatan Correctional Center; A. Toney, Mr., Doctor, Powhatan Correctional Center; Fred Schillings, Dr., Health Service Director, VDOC, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-09
Citations: 518 F. App'x 160
Docket Number: No. 12-7908
Parties: Clarence ROULHAC, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B.S. JANEK, DMD, Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center, Defendant-Appellee, and Prison Health Services; Linda Ray, Ms., Head Nurse, Powhatan Correctional Center; L. Kump, Ms., Doctor, Powhatan Correctional Center; A. Toney, Mr., Doctor, Powhatan Correctional Center; Fred Schillings, Dr., Health Service Director, VDOC, Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 518
Pages: 160–160

Head Matter:
Clarence ROULHAC, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B.S. JANEK, DMD, Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center, Defendant-Appellee, and Prison Health Services; Linda Ray, Ms., Head Nurse, Powhatan Correctional Center; L. Kump, Ms., Doctor, Powhatan Correctional Center; A. Toney, Mr., Doctor, Powhatan Correctional Center; Fred Schillings, Dr., Health Service Director, VDOC, Defendants.
No. 12-7908.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 19, 2013.
Decided: April 9, 2013.
Clarence Roulhac, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, Rawls, McNelis & Mitchell, PC, Richmond, Virginia for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clarence Roulhac, Jr., appeals the district court's judgment denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Roulhac v. Janek, No. 3:10-cv-00408-HEH (E.D. Va. Dec. 23, 2011 & Feb. 16, 2012 & Oct. 9, 2012). We deny Roulhac's motion to compel Defendants to provide dental care. 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.