Case Name: Robert DENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Colin OTTEY, MD, Regional Medical Director, Defendant-Appellee, and Wexford Health Sources, Incorporated; Gilmore Janice, Supervisor Medical Provider; Robustiano Barrera, Medical Provider; Peggy Mahler, Medical Provider, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 99
Docket Number: No. 17-6396
Parties: Robert DENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Colin OTTEY, MD, Regional Medical Director, Defendant-Appellee, and Wexford Health Sources, Incorporated; Gilmore Janice, Supervisor Medical Provider; Robustiano Barrera, Medical Provider; Peggy Mahler, Medical Provider, Defendants
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 99–100

Head Matter:
Robert DENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Colin OTTEY, MD, Regional Medical Director, Defendant-Appellee, and Wexford Health Sources, Incorporated; Gilmore Janice, Supervisor Medical Provider; Robustiano Barrera, Medical Provider; Peggy Mahler, Medical Provider, Defendants
No. 17-6396
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 11, 2017
Decided: October 3, 2017
Robert Dent, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Conrad Meister, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Dent appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in fa vor of Defendant Colin Ottey as to Dent's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) claim of deliberate indifference to his medical needs.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Dent v. Ottey, No. 8:15-cv-00206-CCB, 2017 WL 930126 (D. Md. Mar. 9, 2017); see also Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing requirements to preserve claim that summary judgment was granted prematurely). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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