Case Name: James J. ROYAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen J. BASSETT, Warden; K.L. Pickerel, Assistant Warden; M. Gilbert, RNCB; MR. Phipps, Nurse; Fred Schilling, TLC Health Director; George Smith, Chief Dentist for the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-14
Citations: 331 F. App'x 216
Docket Number: No. 09-6058
Parties: James J. ROYAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen J. BASSETT, Warden; K.L. Pickerel, Assistant Warden; M. Gilbert, RNCB; MR. Phipps, Nurse; Fred Schilling, TLC Health Director; George Smith, Chief Dentist for the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 331
Pages: 216–216

Head Matter:
James J. ROYAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen J. BASSETT, Warden; K.L. Pickerel, Assistant Warden; M. Gilbert, RNCB; MR. Phipps, Nurse; Fred Schilling, TLC Health Director; George Smith, Chief Dentist for the Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-6058.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 9, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 14, 2009.
James J. Royal, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Bland Curwood, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Rosalie Fessier, Timberlake, Smith, Thomas & Moses, PC, Staunton, VA, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James J. Royal appeals the district court's orders granting Defendants' summary judgment motions on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) deliberate indifference to dental needs claims, and denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. Royal v. Bassett, 7:08-cv-00222-jlk-mfu (W.D.Va. Dec. 9, 2008; Jan. 8, 2009). 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.