Linda Grooms v. Hunter Holmes McGuire Veteran

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999782776-2]; denying Motion to amend/correct [999760509-2] Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00849-JAG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999920696]. Mailed to: L Grooms. [16-1148]

Appeal: 16-1148

Doc: 38

Filed: 08/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1148

LINDA GROOMS, Administratrix of the Estate of John Grooms,
Sr., deceased,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HUNTER
HOLMES
MCGUIRE
VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION
MEDICAL
CENTER; COLUMBIA/HCA JOHN RANDOLPH, INC.; VAN GO, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00849-JAG)

Submitted:

August 23, 2016

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

AGEE,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

August 31, 2016

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linda Grooms, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Harker, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia; Tracy Taylor Hague,
LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Janeen Beth Koch,
KALBAUGH, PFUND & MESSERSMITH, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1148

Doc: 38

Filed: 08/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Linda Grooms appeals the district court’s order dismissing
her civil action.
reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and find no
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.
Admin.

Med.

2016);

see

Ctr.,
also

Grooms v. Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans

No.

Va.

3:14-cv-00849-JAG

Code

Ann.

(E.D.

§ 8.01-20.1

Va.

Jan.

11,

We

deny

(2015).

Grooms’ motions to amend caption and to appoint counsel as moot.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2