Derek Hendricks v. Mr. Casina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-ct-03090-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000006265]. Mailed to: Derek Hendricks. [16-6917]

Appeal: 16-6917

Doc: 24

Filed: 01/19/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6917

DEREK HENDRICKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MR. CASINA, Medical Supervisor; DOCTOR OWENS; NURSE NELSON,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
SUPERINTENDENT KORNEGAY; MR. HAWKINS;
HARRELL, Assistant Superintendent,

DR.

DAVIS;

MS.

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-ct-03090-D)

Submitted:

January 17, 2017

Decided:

January 19, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se.
Joseph Finarelli, Special
Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Ginger Bagley
Hunsucker, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North
Carolina; Kelly Street Brown, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG

Appeal: 16-6917

Doc: 24

Filed: 01/19/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-6917

Doc: 24

Filed: 01/19/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Derek
granting

Hendricks

Defendants

appeals

summary

the

judgment

district
on

court’s

Hendricks’

orders

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2012) complaint, in which Hendricks alleged an Eighth
Amendment
medical

claim

of

condition,

deliberate
and

for reconsideration.
reversible error.

denying

indifference
Hendricks’

to

his

serious

postjudgment

motion

We have reviewed the record and find no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

See Hendricks v. Casina, No. 5:13-ct-

03090-D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 2015 & June 23, 2016).

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

3