Doe v. Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc. , 145 F. App'x 823 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2166
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PHARMACIA & UPJOHN, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
03-702-PJM)
Argued: October 28, 2004 Decided: October 17, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Stephen Bennett Mercer, SANDLER & MERCER, P.C., Rockville,
Maryland, for Appellant. Stephen Edward Marshall, VENABLE, L.L.P.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Paul F. Strain,
Mitchell Y. Mirviss, Mark D. Maneche, VENABLE, L.L.P., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jane Doe appeals the dismissal of her amended complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and the
subsequent denial of her “motion to reconsider” the order of
dismissal. The district court dismissed the amended complaint,
which (for our purposes) is grounded in Maryland negligence law,
and denied the motion for reconsideration based on its conclusion
that Pharmacia did not owe a legal duty of care to Jane Doe. In a
prior order, we certified to the Court of Appeals of Maryland two
questions of state law, both of which relate to whether Pharmacia
owed such a duty to Jane Doe. Doe v. Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc., 122
Fed. Appx. 20 (4th Cir. 2005). The Court of Appeals of Maryland
has now answered the certified questions, concluding that Pharmacia
did not owe a legal duty of care to Jane Doe. Doe v. Pharmacia &
Upjohn, Inc., 879 A.2d 1088 (Md. 2005).
Based on the answer to our certified questions, Jane Doe’s
claims fail as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm the orders
dismissing the amended complaint and denying the motion for
reconsideration.
AFFIRMED
2