Case Name: Eric TERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael HENNING, Nurse Practitioner, GCC; Dr. Vincent M. Gore, Medical Director, GCC; L. Moody, LPN; Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., Corporate Entity; Benjamin Wright, Lead Warden, GCC; Dr. Fred Schilling, Director of Health Services, VADOC, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-23
Citations: 616 F. App'x 100
Docket Number: No. 15-6706
Parties: Eric TERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael HENNING, Nurse Practitioner, GCC; Dr. Vincent M. Gore, Medical Director, GCC; L. Moody, LPN; Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., Corporate Entity; Benjamin Wright, Lead Warden, GCC; Dr. Fred Schilling, Director of Health Services, VADOC, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 616
Pages: 100–101

Head Matter:
Eric TERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael HENNING, Nurse Practitioner, GCC; Dr. Vincent M. Gore, Medical Director, GCC; L. Moody, LPN; Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., Corporate Entity; Benjamin Wright, Lead Warden, GCC; Dr. Fred Schilling, Director of Health Services, VADOC, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-6706.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 15, 2015.
Decided: Sept. 23, 2015.
Eric Terry, Appellant Pro Se. Grace Morse Brumagin, Rawls, McNelis & Mitchell, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lees.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric. Terry appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the rea sons stated by the district court. Terry v. Henning, No. 2:13-cv-00118-AWA-LRL (E.D.Va. Apr. 20, 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.