Case Name: James Meshach LOMAX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Colin OTTEY, M.D.; Greg Flury, P.A.; Frank Bishop, Warden; Bobby P. Shearin, Former Warden; R. Roderick, Case Management Manager, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-16
Citations: 638 F. App'x 246
Docket Number: No. 15-7597
Parties: James Meshach LOMAX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Colin OTTEY, M.D.; Greg Flury, P.A.; Frank Bishop, Warden; Bobby P. Shearin, Former Warden; R. Roderick, Case Management Manager, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 638
Pages: 246–246

Head Matter:
James Meshach LOMAX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Colin OTTEY, M.D.; Greg Flury, P.A.; Frank Bishop, Warden; Bobby P. Shearin, Former Warden; R. Roderick, Case Management Manager, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-7597.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 14, 2016.
Decided: March 16, 2016.
James Meshach Lomax, Appellant Pro Se. Serra Aygun, Carolyn Israel Stein, Bonner, Kiernan, Trebach & Crociata, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Elizabeth Erin Pavlick, United States Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.; Nichole Cherie Gatewood, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Ap-pellees.
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Meshach Lomax appeals the district court's orders granting summary judgment to defendants in this action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lomax v. Ottey, No, 8:14-cv-02180-DKC, 2015 WL 4663786 (D.Md. filed Aug. 4, 2015 & entered Aug. 5, 2015; Sept. 24, 2015). 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.