Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

US ex rel. Morrill v. Johns Hopkins Univ, 04-2521 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2521 Visitors: 9
Filed: May 18, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2521 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. Ann C. Morrill, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY; JOHNS HOPKINS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-02-3891-1-CCB) Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 18, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2521 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. Ann C. Morrill, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY; JOHNS HOPKINS HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-02-3891-1-CCB) Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 18, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for the United States. Ann C. Morrill, Owings Mills, Maryland, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Preston Scheeler, Kurt James Fischer, Michelle Jeanine Dickinson, DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY US LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Sheldon Krantz, DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY US LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ann C. Morrill appeals the district court’s order dismissing her qui tam action under the False Claims Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Morrill v. Johns Hopkins Univ., No. CA-02-3891-1-CCB (D. Md. filed Oct. 29, 2004 & entered Nov. 1, 2004). 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 -
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