Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Dawson v. United States, 07-2093 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-2093 Visitors: 18
Filed: Apr. 03, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2093 EVA DAWSON, as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Dawson, and for the benefit of his heirs and in their own capacity, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and RALPH H. JOHNSON VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER; JOHN G. ALLISON, M.D.; MARK A. LOCKETT, M.D., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Da
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2093 EVA DAWSON, as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Dawson, and for the benefit of his heirs and in their own capacity, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and RALPH H. JOHNSON VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER; JOHN G. ALLISON, M.D.; MARK A. LOCKETT, M.D., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:04-cv-01027-DCN) Submitted: March 18, 2008 Decided: April 3, 2008 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eva Dawson, Appellant Pro Se. John Harris Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Eva Dawson appeals the district court’s order entering judgment in favor of the United States in her medical malpractice action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Dawson v. United States, No. 2:04-cv-01027-DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2007). 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 - 3 -
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