Filed: Jan. 22, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 95-30412 Summary Calendar RODNEY SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana (No. 94-CV-1173-D) January 8, 1996 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, AND BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rodney Sanders appeals from the district court's order dismissing his medical malpractice action, filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claim
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 95-30412 Summary Calendar RODNEY SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana (No. 94-CV-1173-D) January 8, 1996 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, AND BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rodney Sanders appeals from the district court's order dismissing his medical malpractice action, filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 95-30412
Summary Calendar
RODNEY SANDERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
(No. 94-CV-1173-D)
January 8, 1996
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, AND BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rodney Sanders appeals from the district court's order
dismissing his medical malpractice action, filed pursuant to the
Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. ยง 2871, et seq., following a
non-jury trial. Sanders argues that the district court erred in
finding that he gave his informed consent to ear surgery. He also
argues that he did not consent to Dr. Stephen Metzinger as the
primary surgeon.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
Sanders' appeal raises challenges to the district court's
factual findings, which are reviewed only for clear error. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 52(a). This Court will set aside such findings only if,
based on the entire record, we are left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made. Burlington Northern v.
Office of Inspector General,
983 F.2d 631, 639 (5th Cir. 1993).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court's
findings of fact and conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, the district court's judgment of dismissal is
AFFIRMED.
2