Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Richardson v. A. A. Podiatry, 05-2277 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-2277 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jan. 24, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2277 LENIR RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus A. A. PODIATRY, P.L.L.C.; DOCTOR ADMASON, Defendants - Appellees, and RAFIK MUWWAD, M.D.; INOVA FAIRFAX HOSPITAL; INOVA ALEXANDRIA HOSPITAL; BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION; MEDICAID, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District Judge. (CA-05-1155) Submitted: January 19, 2006 D
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2277 LENIR RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus A. A. PODIATRY, P.L.L.C.; DOCTOR ADMASON, Defendants - Appellees, and RAFIK MUWWAD, M.D.; INOVA FAIRFAX HOSPITAL; INOVA ALEXANDRIA HOSPITAL; BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION; MEDICAID, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District Judge. (CA-05-1155) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 24, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lenir Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Winston Boone, Sr., BOONE & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Lenir Richardson appeals a district court order dismissing without prejudice her complaint. Insofar as Richardson raised a claim against two hospitals under 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a) (2000), we find Richardson failed to state a claim because she failed to allege the harm suffered as a result of the alleged violations of § 1395dd(a). With respect to the remainder of her claims, which were torts controlled by state law, the district court did not have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm. 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 - 3 -
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