Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Wollstein v. Mary Washington Hospital, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Samuel Wollstein's civil complaint. In his appellate brief, Wollstein failed to challenge the reasons provided by the district court for denying relief. As a result, the appeals court determined that Wollstein waived his right to appellate review of the district court's decision, in accordance with the court's rule that the scope of review is limited to issues raised in the informal brief. The appeals court therefore affirmed the district court's order without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-12-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-2014

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Samuel Wollstein's civil complaint. In his appellate brief, Wollstein failed to challenge the reasons provided by the district court for denying relief. As a result, the appeals court determined that Wollstein waived his right to appellate review of the district court's decision, in accordance with the court's rule that the scope of review is limited to issues raised in the informal brief. The appeals court therefore affirmed the district court's order without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views2 pages

    Wollstein v. Mary Washington Hospital, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Samuel Wollstein's civil complaint. In his appellate brief, Wollstein failed to challenge the reasons provided by the district court for denying relief. As a result, the appeals court determined that Wollstein waived his right to appellate review of the district court's decision, in accordance with the court's rule that the scope of review is limited to issues raised in the informal brief. The appeals court therefore affirmed the district court's order without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-2014

    SAMUEL WOLLSTEIN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    MARY
    WASHINGTON
    HOSPITAL/HOSPICE;
    SOCIAL
    SECURITY
    ADMINISTRATION; CHARLES I. MAURER, Dr.; FREDERICK TUCKER,
    Dr.,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:08-cv-00252-HEH)

    Submitted:

    December 16, 2008

    Decided:

    December 19, 2008

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Samuel Wollstein, Appellant Pro Se. Wesley Glenn Russell, Jr.,


    MCSWEENEY, CRUMP, CHILDRESS & TEMPLE, PC, Richmond, Virginia;
    Robin Elaine Perrin, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
    Virginia; Jeffrey Hamilton Geiger, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS &
    MILLER, Richmond, Virginia; Todd David Anderson, LECLAIR RYAN,
    PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Samuel
    dismissing
    brief,

    his

    Wollstein
    civil

    Wollstein

    appeals

    complaint.

    failed

    to

    the

    district

    In

    his

    challenge

    informal

    the

    reasons supporting the denial of relief.

    courts

    order

    appellate

    district

    courts

    Accordingly, Wollstein

    has waived appellate review of those issues.

    See 4th Cir. R.

    34(b) (The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in
    the

    informal

    courts order.

    brief.).

    Accordingly,

    we

    affirm

    the

    district

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts

    and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials


    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like