Filed: May 03, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2415 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, S. M. OLIVA, Party in Interest - Appellant, versus MOUNTAIN HEALTH CARE, P.A., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-288-1) Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: May 3, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2415 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, S. M. OLIVA, Party in Interest - Appellant, versus MOUNTAIN HEALTH CARE, P.A., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-288-1) Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: May 3, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2415
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
S. M. OLIVA,
Party in Interest - Appellant,
versus
MOUNTAIN HEALTH CARE, P.A.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-288-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: May 3, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
S. M. Oliva, Appellant Pro Se. Catherine Griffith O’Sullivan,
Steven Jeffrey Mintz, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee United States.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises from the Government’s civil antitrust
complaint against Mountain Health Care, P.A. That case resulted in
the dissolution of Mountain Health Care. The district court
granted Oliva leave to intervene for purposes of appeal. Oliva
challenges the Government’s compliance with the Antitrust
Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h) (2000) (the
Tunney Act), but he does not challenge the terms of the final
judgment itself.
We conclude Oliva has not shown he has suffered an
invasion of a legally protected interest that is both concrete and
particularized, rather than an interest shared by the public at
large. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555, 560
(1992). Accordingly, he cannot establish that he has standing to
bring this appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. 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.
DISMISSED
- 2 -