Filed: Feb. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2092 JOHN A. LANE, MD, FACOG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEPHEN J. WILSON, MD; JOCK R. WHEELER, MD; KRIS LEE SPERRY, MD; STEVEN F. GORDON, MD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-04-1255-2) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: February 28, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2092 JOHN A. LANE, MD, FACOG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEPHEN J. WILSON, MD; JOCK R. WHEELER, MD; KRIS LEE SPERRY, MD; STEVEN F. GORDON, MD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-04-1255-2) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: February 28, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2092
JOHN A. LANE, MD, FACOG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STEPHEN J. WILSON, MD; JOCK R. WHEELER, MD;
KRIS LEE SPERRY, MD; STEVEN F. GORDON, MD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CA-04-1255-2)
Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: February 28, 2006
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John A. Lane, Appellant Pro Se. Ancil Glenn Ramey, STEPTOE &
JOHNSON, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John A. Lane, appeals the district court’s order adopting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant the Appellants’
motion to dismiss in this civil case. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Lane v. Wilson, No. CA-04-
1255-2 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 26, 2005); see also Wilson v. Bernet, ___
S.E.2d ___,
2005 WL 3092265 (W. Va. 2005) (holding that adverse
expert witnesses are entitled to immunity for their testimony and
participation in civil proceedings). 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 -