MURRAY v. Warden Kathleen Green; Warden Ricky Foxwell, Defendants. (2020)

Melvin Wayne Murray appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”) and Ruth Pinkney, PA (“Pinkney”), in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Murray also appeals the orders denying his motions for counsel, granting Wexford and Pinkney multiple extensions of time to file a dispositive motion, and denying his motion for reconsideration.

We have reviewed the record and identified no reversible error in the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wexford and Pinkney. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); United States v. Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, 899 F.3d 295, 312 (4th Cir. 2018) (stating standard of review for summary judgment ruling), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1191, 203 L.Ed.2d 203 (2019). Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the court's rulings on the motions for counsel, for extensions of time, or for reconsideration. See Mayfield v. Nat'l Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 378 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating standard of review for denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion); Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 203 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating standard of review for grant of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) extension); Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987) (stating standard of review for denial of counsel).

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Murray v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-02574-RDB (D. Md. Sept. 28, 2017; July 17, Aug. 6, Sept. 4 & Oct. 24, 2018; filed June 11, 2019 & entered June 12, 2019; Sept. 10, 2019). We deny Murray's motion for appointment of counsel. 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.