Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-19
Citations: 673 F. App'x 335
Docket Number: No. 16-6917
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 673
Pages: 335–336

Head Matter:
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.
No. 16-6917
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 17, 2017
Decided: January 19, 2017
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 Moore & Henderson, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lees.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derek Hendricks appeals the district court's orders granting Defendants summary judgment on Hendricks' 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (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-ct-03090-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