Monica Ball v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America , 587 F. App'x 78 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED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:   December 15, 2014
    Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
    PER CURIAM:
    Monica     Ball      filed    a   diversity      civil    action     against
    Takeda    Pharmaceuticals        America,         Inc.,     Takeda    Pharmaceutical
    Company    Limited,       and    related         defendants,    alleging       product
    liability and associated Virginia tort claims.                       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   review      to     those    issues     fairly    raised    in   the
    opening brief.       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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-2338

Citation Numbers: 587 F. App'x 78

Judges: Motz, Agee, Thacker

Filed Date: 12/15/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024