Monica L. Ball v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999359752-2]; denying Motion to extend filing time [999424476-2]. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00168-JAG-MHL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999492627]. Mailed to: Monica Ball. [13-2338]

Appeal: 13-2338

Doc: 59

Filed: 12/15/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2338

MONICA L. BALL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS
AMERICA,
INCORPORATED;
TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, a Japanese Corporation,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED; TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS
INTERNATIONAL,
INCORPORATED;
TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; TAKEDA AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC.; TAKEDA
GLOBAL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.; TAKEDA SAN
DIEGO, INC.; TAP PHARMACEUTICALS PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00168-JAG-MHL)

Submitted:

November 26, 2014

Decided:

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

December 15, 2014

Appeal: 13-2338

Doc: 59

Filed: 12/15/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Monica L. Ball, Appellant Pro Se. Damon W.D. Wright, VENABLE,
LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-2338

Doc: 59

Filed: 12/15/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Monica
Takeda
Company

Ball

Pharmaceuticals
Limited,

and

filed

a

diversity

America,
related

Inc.,

civil
Takeda

defendants,

action

Pharmaceutical

alleging

liability and associated Virginia tort claims.

against

product

On appeal, Ball

challenges the district court’s orders dismissing her original
complaint, in part with leave to amend; dismissing her amended
complaint with prejudice; and denying her post-judgment motions.
We

confine

our

opening brief.

review

to

those

issues

fairly

raised

in

the

See Town of Nags Head v. Toloczko, 728 F.3d 391,

395 n.4 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that arguments not raised
in opening brief are waived).

We have reviewed the record and

submissions of the parties and find no reversible error or abuse
of

discretion

in

the

district

court’s

challenged

rulings.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

See Ball v. Takeda Pharms. Am., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00168-

JAG-MHL (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2013; Aug. 8, 2013; Oct. 1, 2013).
We deny Ball’s motions for appointment of counsel and for an
extension of time to file a reply brief.

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

3