Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

James Robinson v. Henry King, 11-1216 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-1216 Visitors: 30
Filed: Dec. 06, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1216 JAMES K. ROBINSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. HENRY L. KING, M.D.; MDA HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a Medical Doctor Associates, Defendants – Appellees, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant/Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00418-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: October 6, 2011 Decided: December 6, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1216 JAMES K. ROBINSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. HENRY L. KING, M.D.; MDA HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a Medical Doctor Associates, Defendants – Appellees, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant/Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00418-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: October 6, 2011 Decided: December 6, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judith M. Cofield, JM COFIELD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Joseph M. Rainsbury, LECLAIRRYAN, Roanoke, Virginia; Ronald P. Herbert, Alexander K. Page, Ashley C. Dobbin, LECLAIRRYAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James K. Robinson appeals the district court’s orders granting the Appellees’ motion in limine to exclude Robinson’s experts, granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees on Robinson’s claims of medical malpractice, and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Robinson v. King, No. 2:09-cv- 00418-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. Oct. 29 & Nov. 12, 2010; Feb. 3, 2011). 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