Filed: Sep. 10, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1239 WILLIAM D. GARNER, Individually and as Person- al Representative of the Estate of deceased, Olga M. Garner, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1648-JFM) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 10, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1239 WILLIAM D. GARNER, Individually and as Person- al Representative of the Estate of deceased, Olga M. Garner, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1648-JFM) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 10, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-1239
WILLIAM D. GARNER, Individually and as Person-
al Representative of the Estate of deceased,
Olga M. Garner,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-95-1648-JFM)
Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 10, 1998
Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William D. Garner, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Joseph Peters, Sr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court’s order pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 52(c) granting judgment in favor of the Defendant in
Appellant’s medical malpractice action. We review the district
court's findings of fact in support of the granting of a Rule 52(c)
motion under the clearly erroneous standard and its conclusions of
law de novo. See Carter v. Ball,
33 F.3d 450, 457 (4th Cir. 1994).
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find
that the district court did not err in finding that Appellant’s
claims could not be maintained as a matter of law. 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
2