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

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.”).