Case Name: Eric M. McMILLIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NC CENTRAL PRISON; J.D. Church; Lieutenant Panter; Sergeant Jasper; Officer Henderson; Officer Morrison; Dietician at Central Prison, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-23
Citations: 534 F. App'x 221
Docket Number: No. 13-6535
Parties: Eric M. McMILLIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NC CENTRAL PRISON; J.D. Church; Lieutenant Panter; Sergeant Jasper; Officer Henderson; Officer Morrison; Dietician at Central Prison, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 534
Pages: 221–221

Head Matter:
Eric M. McMILLIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NC CENTRAL PRISON; J.D. Church; Lieutenant Panter; Sergeant Jasper; Officer Henderson; Officer Morrison; Dietician at Central Prison, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-6535.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 18, 2013.
Decided: July 23, 2013.
Eric M. McMillian, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lees.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric M. McMillian appeals from three orders that the district court entered in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action: (1) the January 4, 2012 order granting two Defendants summary judgment; (2) the September 7, 2012 order denying McMillian's first motion for reconsideration of the January 4 order; and (3) the March 19, 2013 order granting another Defendant summary judgment and denying McMillian's second motion for reconsideration of the January 4 order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in these various orders. See McMillian v. N.C. Central Prison, No. 5:10-ct-03037-FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 4, 2012, Sept. 7, 2012, & Mar. 19, 2013). 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.