Roy Hunt, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. We have already decided Hunt’s appeal from the underlying order, in which the district court dismissed Hunt’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) suit. In that case, we affirmed the district court’s order as to all Defendants except Dr. Thompson. As to Thompson, we vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. See Hunt v. Sandhir, 295 Fed.Appx. 584 (4th Cir. 2008) (unpublished). Hunt’s Rule 59(e) motion reargued the claims raised below and made in his first appeal. Thus, for the same reasons outlined in our prior opinion, we affirm the district court’s order as to all defendants except Dr. Thompson. With *138 regard to the claim against Thompson, because the cause of action has already been remanded for further consideration, the portion of the appeal contesting the district court’s treatment of this claim is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss this part of the appeal. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.