U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1997

Griffin v. Charlotte Memorial

Griffin v. Charlotte Memorial
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided August 20, 1997

Griffin v. Charlotte Memorial

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1585

WYMON GRIFFIN, Claimant - Appellant, and

WILMA OLIPHANT; BERNICE HOWIE; BERTHA ANDER- SON; RUTH COLEMAN; PAMELA BENNETT; KIM WAL- LACE; RANDY TUCKER; ROBERTA SASPORTAS; ANITA SINGLEY; CHARLES NORWOOD; LULA B. MILLER; EVELYN ALEXANDER; YVONNE SESSOMS; BERTHA CHISHOLM; LILIE ANN STEWART; ANTWERP DUNCAN; MILDRED GLENN; CHARLOTTE CHAPTER OF THE OLD NORTH STATE MEDICAL, DENTAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY; TERRY RAGIN, Plaintiffs, versus CHARLOTTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CEN- TER; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-78-326-C-C-MU, CA-78-370-C-C-MU)

Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 20, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wymon Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. John Oliver Pollard, David Lee Terry, BLAKENEY & ALEXANDER, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order adopting the Spe- cial Master's Report: Final Findings and Recommendations Concerning the Stage II Claim of Wymon Griffin, and denying Appellant's motion to vacate the order of reference to the special master. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the Special Master and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Griffin v. Charlotte Memorial Hosp. & Medical Ctr., Nos. CA-78-326- C-C-MU; CA-78-370-C-C-MU (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.