Case Name: Richard SISSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fred DAVIS, Warden, Deerfield Correctional Center; Rosanne Conner, RN, Deerfield Correctional Center; K. Faison, Medical Staff, Deerfield Correctional Center; Fred Schilling, Health Services Director-VDOC; Benita Badgette, Healthcare Adm., Deerfield Correctional Center; Gary Bass, Chief of Operations-VDOC, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-16
Citations: 475 F. App'x 910
Docket Number: No. 12-6496
Parties: Richard SISSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Fred DAVIS, Warden, Deerfield Correctional Center; Rosanne Conner, RN, Deerfield Correctional Center; K. Faison, Medical Staff, Deerfield Correctional Center; Fred Schilling, Health Services Director—VDOC; Benita Badgette, Healthcare Adm., Deerfield Correctional Center; Gary Bass, Chief of Operations-VDOC, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 910–911

Head Matter:
Richard SISSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Fred DAVIS, Warden, Deerfield Correctional Center; Rosanne Conner, RN, Deerfield Correctional Center; K. Faison, Medical Staff, Deerfield Correctional Center; Fred Schilling, Health Services Director—VDOC; Benita Badgette, Healthcare Adm., Deerfield Correctional Center; Gary Bass, Chief of Operations-VDOC, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 12-6496.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 16, 2012.
Richard Sisson, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Davies Supino, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; Jeff W. Rosen, Pender & Coward, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Ap-pellees.
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
•Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Sisson appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying his subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sisson v. Davis, No. 1:11-cv-00313-LMB-TCB, 2012 WL 368223 (E.D. Va. Feb. 2, 2012) & (Mar. 2, 2012). 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.