Rhonda Brantley v. Ethicon, Inc

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cv-02605, 2:12-md-02327. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999916265]. [16-1192, 16-1194]

Appeal: 16-1192

Doc: 28

Filed: 08/24/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1192

RHONDA T. BRANTLEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ETHICON, INCORPORATED; JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1194

SHELIA L. BRACATO,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ETHICON, INCORPORATED; JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Joseph R. Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:12-cv-02605; 2:12-cv-02697; 2:12-md-02327)

Submitted:

August 12, 2016

Decided:

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

August 24, 2016

Appeal: 16-1192

Doc: 28

Filed: 08/24/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tracy W. Houck, Ron Riggle, HOUCK & RIGGLE, LLC, Ruston,
Louisiana, for Appellants.
Philip Combs, David B. Thomas,
Daniel R. Higginbotham, THOMAS COMBS & SPANN, PLLC, Charleston,
West Virginia; John C. Henegan, Sr., Christy Jones, Susanna
Moore Moldoveanu, BUTLER SNOW LLP, Ridgeland, Mississippi, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1192

Doc: 28

Filed: 08/24/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rhonda

T.

Brantley

and

Shelia

L.

Bracato

appeal

the

district court’s orders dismissing these actions for failure to
timely effect service of process.
and find no reversible error.
reasons

stated

by

the

We have reviewed the records

Accordingly, we affirm for the

district

court.

Brantley

v.

Ethicon,

Inc., Nos. 2:12-cv-02605, 2:12-md-02327 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 25,
2016);

Bracato

v.

Ethicon,

Inc.,

Nos.

2:12-md-02327 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 25, 2016).
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

2:12-cv-02697,
We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3