USCA4 Appeal: 23-6232 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6968

BRANDON ROBERTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; JOHN/JANE DOE DEFENDANT; KEITH LYONS, Acting Warden of JCI; JEFFREY NINES, Warden of NBCI; WAYNE WEBB, former Commissioner, Maryland Division of Correction; J.

PHILLIP MORGAN, Warden of MCTC, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 23-6232

BRANDON ROBERTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; JOHN/JANE DOE; JEFFREY NINES, Warden at N.B.C.I.; WAYNE WEBB, Former Commissioner, Maryland Division of Correction; KEITH LYONS, Acting Warden of JCI; J. PHILLIP MORGAN, Warden of MCTC, Defendants - Appellees.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6232 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00340-ELH)

Submitted: July 20, 2023 Decided: August 1, 2023

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Marie Smith, Samuel Thomas Wolf, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6232 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/01/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Brandon Roberts appeals the district court’s orders in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, dismissing the claims against Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and denying Roberts’ motion for discovery. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.

Roberts v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00340-ELH (D. Md. filed July 26, 2022 & entered July 27, 2022; Dec. 7, 2022; filed Feb. 10, 2023 & entered Feb. 13, 2023).

We deny Roberts’ motion for clarification and correction of filings and 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