Hawkes v. University Physician

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Hawkes v. University Physician

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1313

LINDA HAWKES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS, INCORPORATED; BERNARD CARPENTER, Executive Director of University Physicians, Incorporated; DAVIDGE BILLING GROUP; SARA LARCH, Director of the Davidge Billing Group; FACULTY PRACTICE OF UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND; PAUL GIANNADREA, Medical Director of Faculty Practice of University of Maryland; MARGI HUMRICH, Director of the Office of Human Resources of University Physicians, Incorpo- rated; JOHN REGENFUSS, Senior Administrator of the Department of Psychiatry; DARLENE IRBY- ADESALU, Assistant Administrator of Department of Psychiatry; EVELYN WARD, Billing Represen- tative, Department of Psychiatry; TINA JOHN- SON, Director of Billing, Davidge Billing Group; YVONNE CYPRESS, Billing Supervisor, Davidge Billing Group,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-96-3860-WMN)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: May 1, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linda Hawkes, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Elliot Rockman, SEROTTE, ROCKMAN & WESCOTT, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 granting Appel-

lees' motion to dismiss and dismissing Appellant's civil action. We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hawkes v. University Physicians, Inc., No. CA-96- 3860-WMN (D. Md. Feb. 2, 1998). 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 deci- sional process.

AFFIRMED

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished