Filed: Sep. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1462 BRENDA MARIE ALDRIDGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MIRENA PRODUCT LIABILITY CASE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:14-cv-01365-RDB) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1462 BRENDA MARIE ALDRIDGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MIRENA PRODUCT LIABILITY CASE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:14-cv-01365-RDB) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1462 BRENDA MARIE ALDRIDGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MIRENA PRODUCT LIABILITY CASE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:14-cv-01365-RDB) Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brenda Marie Aldridge, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brenda Marie Aldridge appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Aldridge v. Mirena Prod. Liab. Case, No. 1:14-cv-01365-RDB (D. Md. Apr. 28, 2014). 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 2
