Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mizrach v. United States, 09-1415 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1415 Visitors: 25
Filed: Oct. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1415 PHILLIP MIZRACH, as Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Abraham I. Kurland, Deceased, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:08- cv-02030-AMD) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judg
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1415 PHILLIP MIZRACH, as Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Abraham I. Kurland, Deceased, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:08- cv-02030-AMD) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Mizrach, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Harold Barnard, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Phillip Mizrach, as personal representative of the Estate of Abraham I. Kurland, appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his medical malpractice complaint filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (2006), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mizrach v. United States, No. 1:08-cv- 02030-AMD (D. Md. Feb. 17, 2009 & Mar. 11, 2009). 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