Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Barker v. Hoak, 02-2095 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2095 Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 11, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2095 MARY JO BARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRUCE HOAK, M.D., Defendant - Appellee, and THOMAS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-1197-2) Submitted: March 27, 2003 Decided: April 11, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2095 MARY JO BARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRUCE HOAK, M.D., Defendant - Appellee, and THOMAS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-1197-2) Submitted: March 27, 2003 Decided: April 11, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Jo Barker, Appellant Pro Se. Richard D. Jones, Mark Allen Robinson, FLAHERTY, SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mary Jo Barker appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Bruce Hoak in this medical malpractice action. In the briefing order, Barker was warned that this court would not consider issues not specifically raised in her informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Nonetheless, Barker’s informal brief does not challenge the grounds for the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Instead, she presents new information that was not before the district court as support for the merits of her claim. We may not consider such new information on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a)(1). Accordingly, we affirm. We grant Dr. Hoak’s motion to strike and deny Barker’s motion to supplement the record. 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 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