Case Name: James Edward WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. F.H. BASSETT, III, Doctor at Central Prison; M. Curzan, Doctor at Central Prison; M. Suma, Doctor at Central Prison; Doctor Samidi; Doctor Umesi, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-03
Citations: 211 F. App'x 234
Docket Number: No. 06-6938
Parties: James Edward WILLIAMS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. F.H. BASSETT, III, Doctor at Central Prison; M. Curzan, Doctor at Central Prison; M. Suma, Doctor at Central Prison; Doctor Samidi; Doctor Umesi, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 211
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
James Edward WILLIAMS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. F.H. BASSETT, III, Doctor at Central Prison; M. Curzan, Doctor at Central Prison; M. Suma, Doctor at Central Prison; Doctor Samidi; Doctor Umesi, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-6938.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 21, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 3, 2007.
James Edward Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Edward Williams appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Umesi, No. 5:05-ct-00539-FL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 7, 2006). 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.