Filed: Feb. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2038 ANNETTE C. WATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DUKE MEDICAL CENTER; DAVIS AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01007-JAB-LPA) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2038 ANNETTE C. WATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DUKE MEDICAL CENTER; DAVIS AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01007-JAB-LPA) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2038
ANNETTE C. WATKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DUKE MEDICAL CENTER; DAVIS AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-01007-JAB-LPA)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Annette C. Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Matthew Keen,
Kimberly Joyce Lehman, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART,
PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Annette C. Watkins appeals the district court’s order
confirming an arbitration award in favor of Duke Medical Center
and dismissing her § 1983 action. On appeal, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Watkins’s informal brief does not
challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition,
Watkins has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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