Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Martha Stevenson v. Ethicon, Incorporated, 16-1621 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-1621 Visitors: 29
Filed: Nov. 10, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1621 MARTHA M. STEVENSON; JAMES STEVENSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ETHICON, INCORPORATED; JOHNSON & JOHNSON, Defendants – Appellees, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:12-cv-02700; 2:12-md-02327) Submitted: November 4, 2016 Decided: November 10, 2016 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, an
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1621 MARTHA M. STEVENSON; JAMES STEVENSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ETHICON, INCORPORATED; JOHNSON & JOHNSON, Defendants – Appellees, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:12-cv-02700; 2:12-md-02327) Submitted: November 4, 2016 Decided: November 10, 2016 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tracy W. Houck, Ron Riggle, HOUCK & RIGGLE, LLC, Ruston, Louisiana, for Appellants. David B. Thomas, Daniel R. Higginbotham, THOMAS COMBS & SPANN, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Christy Jones, John C. Henegan, Sr., Susana Moore Moldoveanu, BUTLER SNOW, LLP, Ridgeland, Mississippi, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Martha M. Stevenson and James Stevenson appeal the district court’s orders dismissing this action for failure to timely effect service of process and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stevenson v. Ethicon, Inc., Nos. 2:12- cv-02700; 2:12-md-02327 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 26, 2016; May 27, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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