Marjory Regan v. United State

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:11-cv-00422-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999082738]. Mailed to: Marjory Regan. [12-2484]

Appeal: 12-2484

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/09/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2484

MARJORY WAGNER REGAN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ERIC K.
SHINSEKI, Secretary, Department of Veteran Affairs; WILLIAM
FEELEY, Director, Buffalo VA Medical Center; MICHAEL S.
GRIMALDI, M.D., Buffalo VAMC; RUBEN CARTEJENA, M.D.,
Buffalo VAMC; JANE DOE 1, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; JOHN
DOE # 1, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; JOHN DOE #2, Medical
Staff Buffalo VAMC; JOHN DOE #3, Medical Staff Buffalo
VAMC; JOHN DOE #4, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; JOHN DOE #5,
Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; JOHN DOE #6, Medical Staff
Buffalo VAMC; JANE DOE #2, Staff Member Buffalo VAMC; JANE
DOE #3, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; JANE DOE #4, Medical
Staff Buffalo VAMC; JOHN DOE #7, Medical Staff Buffalo
VAMC; JANE DOE #5, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; NANCY
BENJAMIN, Buffalo VAMC; KATHY PHILLIPS, Buffalo VAMC; JANE
DOE #6, Staff Member Cleveland VAMC; JANE DOE #7, Staff
Member Cleveland VAMC; JOHN DOE #8, MD, Cleveland VAMC;
JANE DOE #9, Office of Legal Council Buffalo VAMC; HENRY
PATRONSKI, Patient Advocate, Buffalo VAMC; JANE DOE #10,
Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; AMY T. QUINLIVAN, M.D., Buffalo
VAMC; M. T. SRIKRISHNA, M.D., Buffalo VAMC; SAMUEL J.
VICARETI, Buffalo VAMC; JACQUELIN BRICKELMAN, Buffalo VAMC;
HONG-SHAUR SHIEH, Buffalo VAMC; LISA N. NICOLAS, M.D.,
Buffalo VAMC; JOANNE H. NELSON, LPN, Buffalo VAMC; MARGARET
DUNN, Buffalo VAMC; GEORGE P. BOUCHER, Buffalo VAMC;
BERNADINE H. DRAFFIN-PLUMMER, Buffalo VAMC; GREGORY PISKOR,
Buffalo VAMC; GEORGE J. BURNETT, M.D., Buffalo VAMC; JOSEPH
J. BASO, Buffalo VAMC; JANE DOE #11, Quality Management,
Buffalo VAMC; JOHN DOE #11, Chief of Medicine, Buffalo
VAMC; MICHAEL S. FINEGAN, Acting Director, Buffalo VAMC,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal: 12-2484

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/09/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:11-cv-00422-D)

Submitted:

March 25, 2013

Decided:

April 9, 2013

Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marjory Wagner Regan, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-2484

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/09/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Marjory
order

granting

under

the

Wagner

Regan

Defendants’

Federal

Tort

appeals

motion
Claims

to
Act

the

district

dismiss

court’s

Regan’s

(“FTCA”),

28

action

U.S.C.A.

§§ 1346(b)(1), 2671 - 2680 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012), for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

On appeal, Regan first argues that

the district court failed to provide her with adequate notice of
the time limitations for filing her sur-reply to the motion to
dismiss and her objections to the magistrate judge’s memorandum
and

recommendation.

However,

the

record

plainly

establishes

that she was provided clear notice of the deadlines applicable
to

both.

The

record

also

provides

no

evidence

that

Regan

requested an extension of time to file supplemental objections
to

the

magistrate

judge’s

memorandum

additional time to file her sur-reply.

and

recommendation,

or

Thus, we conclude that

Regan is not entitled to relief on this basis.
Regan also challenges the district court’s conclusions
that her complaint was untimely under the statute of limitations
applicable

to

FTCA

claims

and

that

the

Health

Insurance

Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) does not provide a
private right of action related to the amendment of protected
health information.
objections

to

recommendation.

the

Regan did not raise these issues in her
magistrate

judge’s

memorandum

and

The timely filing of specific objections to a
3

Appeal: 12-2484

Doc: 9

magistrate

Filed: 04/09/2013

judge’s

Pg: 4 of 4

recommendation

is

necessary

to

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

noncompliance.

been

warned

of

the

consequences

of

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

If a

party does not file specific written objections to a finding of
fact or conclusion of law proposed by the magistrate judge, the
party is deemed to have waived her right to appellate review of
that particular finding of fact or conclusion of law made by the
district court.

United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22

(4th Cir. 2007).

Applying these principles, we conclude Regan

has waived appellate review of her remaining issues on appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

Court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4