Filed: Jul. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6032 RONNIE JOE VANZANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. BERRY WEISSGLASS; DR. THEODOLPH JACOBS; KAREN HUFFMAN, Physician Assistant, Defendants – Appellees, and CAROLINA CENTER FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; DIRECTOR DAWN FRAZIER; NURSE MICHAEL MURRY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (8:15-cv-02876-RBH) Submitted: June 15, 201
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6032 RONNIE JOE VANZANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. BERRY WEISSGLASS; DR. THEODOLPH JACOBS; KAREN HUFFMAN, Physician Assistant, Defendants – Appellees, and CAROLINA CENTER FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; DIRECTOR DAWN FRAZIER; NURSE MICHAEL MURRY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (8:15-cv-02876-RBH) Submitted: June 15, 2017..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6032
RONNIE JOE VANZANT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR. BERRY WEISSGLASS; DR. THEODOLPH JACOBS; KAREN HUFFMAN,
Physician Assistant,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
CAROLINA CENTER FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; DIRECTOR DAWN
FRAZIER; NURSE MICHAEL MURRY,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (8:15-cv-02876-RBH)
Submitted: June 15, 2017 Decided: July 6, 2017
Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie Joe Vanzant, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Willcox Buyck, Gordon Wade Cooper,
BUYCK SANDERS & SIMMONS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Joe Vanzant appeals the district court’s order adopting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to the
Defendants on Vanzant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action claiming deliberate indifference
to his serious medical needs and the court’s order denying reconsideration. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on
the reasoning of the district court. Vanzant v. Weissglass, No. 8:15-cv-02876-RBH
(D.S.C., Sept. 6, 2016 & Dec. 19, 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