C. Holmes v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 2, 2023
Docket23-1043
StatusUnpublished

This text of C. Holmes v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, Inc. (C. Holmes v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
C. Holmes v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, Inc., (4th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1043 Doc: 20 Filed: 11/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1043

C. HOLMES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.; J. DOE #1 THROUGH J. DOE #X; SCOTT MCCARTHA; MS. SHIPMAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:20-cv-00004-BHH-MHC)

Submitted: October 31, 2023 Decided: November 2, 2023

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. James B. Hood, Kathryn N. Tanner, HOOD LAW FIRM, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1043 Doc: 20 Filed: 11/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

C. Holmes appeals the district court’s orders (1) denying her motion to restore or

reopen a civil action that she had voluntarily dismissed and to stay proceedings pending

resolution of an earlier appeal, and (2) denying her motions for reconsideration of the denial

of her motion to restore or reopen her case and for leave to amend her complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s orders. Holmes v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of S.C., Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00004-BHH-

MHC (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 2022; Dec. 13, 2022). We grant Holmes’ motion to file an

oversized informal 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

* Holmes’ reliance on South Carolina procedural rules is misplaced. See McFarland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 810 F.3d 273, 284 (4th Cir. 2016) (“Federal courts apply federal rules of procedure.”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Philip McFarland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
810 F.3d 273 (Fourth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
C. Holmes v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-holmes-v-blue-cross-blue-shield-of-south-carolina-inc-ca4-2023.