Filed: Jul. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1560 CHARLES ALFRED HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTHEASTERN MEDICAL CLINIC, Red Springs; ROBERT L. HOLLINGSWORTH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00158-D) Submitted: July 16, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1560 CHARLES ALFRED HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTHEASTERN MEDICAL CLINIC, Red Springs; ROBERT L. HOLLINGSWORTH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00158-D) Submitted: July 16, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1560 CHARLES ALFRED HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTHEASTERN MEDICAL CLINIC, Red Springs; ROBERT L. HOLLINGSWORTH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00158-D) Submitted: July 16, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Alfred Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Alfred Hill appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his medical malpractice complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hill v. Se. Med. Clinic (E.D.N.C. May 13 & 14, 2019). 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 2
