Hieda Keeler v. Lawrence Chang

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cv-00019-AWA-TEM. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999719957]. Mailed to: Appellant and attorney Michael Gerber. [15-2070]

Appeal: 15-2070

Doc: 17

Filed: 12/17/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2070

HIEDA KEELER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR. LAWRENCE CHANG; PARISER DERMATOLOGY; DR. DENNIS CRUFF;
HAMPTON
SENTARA
SURGERY
SPECIALISTS;
HAMPTON
SENTARA
CAREPLEX; DR. BERNIE SKINNER; TIDEWATER DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (4:15-cv-00019-AWA-TEM)

Submitted:

December 15, 2015

Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.

and

FLOYD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

December 17, 2015

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hieda A. Keeler, Appellant Pro Se.
Rodney Seth Dillman,
HANCOCK, DANIEL, JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia;
Dorinda Parkola Burton, Michael Todd Gerber, POOLE MAHONEY, PC,
Virginia Beach, Virginia; Isaac Abraham McBeth, RAWLS, MCNELIS &
MITCHELL, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Joseph Tedford McFadden, Jr.,
RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2070

Doc: 17

Filed: 12/17/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Hieda

A.

Keeler

appeals

the

district

court’s

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
confine

our

brief.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

does

not

legal
before

Keeler

order.

judgment.

to

challenge

disposition,
court’s

review

the

the
has

issues

raised

On appeal, we

the

Appellant’s

Because Keeler’s informal brief

basis

for

forfeited

Accordingly,

in

order

we

the

district

appellate

affirm

the

court’s

review

of

district

the

court’s

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

2