USCA4 Appeal: 23-7263 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7263

ROBERT G. MOORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF W.C.I. (SHANE WEBER); NURSE TAMI OF W.C.I.; DOCTOR OF W.C.I. (JOHN DOE); DPSCS (Commissioner); PAIGE JONES, Head of Director of City Jail; SIERRA NOLAN, Nurse; RYAN BROWNING, NP; KRISTA SELF, Practitioner; DR. KASAHUN TEMESGEN; MEDICAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR BALTIMORE; CITY JAIL (Head Director of City Jail); DOCTOR FOR CITY JAIL (John Doe); F.D.A. (Head director of F.D.A.) John Doe; BRITTANII MANSTON, Nurse; HOLLY HOOVER, Practitioner; NURSE SICELLYER; DR. ROBERT WILLIAMS; TEMEILA BENEGAR; PRISCILLA COBB; SANYA ADEBAYO; MASOUD DJAHANMIR, Prescriber; GETACHEW, Provider; DAYENDA CORCORAN, Commissioner of Corrections; FRANK BISHOP, Warden of North Branch; JODI DOYLE, Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-01705-DKC)

Submitted: July 26, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024

Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7263 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

Robert Gary Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Lucas William Baker Chrencik, GOODELL DEVRIES LEECH & DANN, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7263 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Robert G. Moore appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint and

striking his second motion to amend. We have reviewed the record and Moore’s arguments

on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order

dismissing his claims. Moore v. Warden of W.C.I., No. 1:22-cv-01705-DKC (D. Md.

Nov. 13, 2023). We deny as moot Moore’s motions for an injunction and discovery. 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