Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Holmes v. Tenet HealthSystem, 00-1660 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1660 Visitors: 11
Filed: Nov. 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1660 CYNTHIA C. HOLMES, M.D. a/k/a J. Doe, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TENET HEALTHSYSTEM MEDICAL, INCORPORATED; EAST COOPER COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-99-833-2-23) Submitted: October 31, 2000 Decided: November 17, 2000 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judg
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1660 CYNTHIA C. HOLMES, M.D. a/k/a J. Doe, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TENET HEALTHSYSTEM MEDICAL, INCORPORATED; EAST COOPER COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-99-833-2-23) Submitted: October 31, 2000 Decided: November 17, 2000 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cynthia C. Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. E. Douglas Pratt-Thomas, PRATT-THOMAS, PEARCE, EPTING & WALKER, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant Cynthia C. Holmes, M.D., appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants in her action raising violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2 (1994), the Anti-Kickback statute, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1320a-7(b) (West Supp. 2000), and the Stark Law, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1395nn (West Supp. 2000), and several state law claims. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Holmes v. Tenet HealthSystem Medical, Inc., No. CA-99-833-2-23 (D.S.C. Apr. 17, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer