Filed: Dec. 03, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1925 JUDITH E. CALDWELL, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-95-3260-3-19BC) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1925 JUDITH E. CALDWELL, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-95-3260-3-19BC) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1925 JUDITH E. CALDWELL, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-95-3260-3-19BC) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judith E. Caldwell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying her mo- tion for reconsideration of the denial of relief on her 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Caldwell v. South Carolina State Board of Medical Examiners, No. CA-95-3260-3-19BC (D.S.C. June 14, 1996). Further, we deny her motion to transfer to an appropriate venue. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
