Davis v. Knipp

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1505

MARK DAVIS, M.D.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HARRY KNIPP, M.D., Chairman of the Maryland Board of Physicians, in his official and individual capacity; CAROL SAMUELS-BOTTS, M.D., Vice Chairman of the Maryland Board of Physicians, in her official and individual capacity; PAUL T. ELDER, M.D., Secretary/Treasurer of the Maryland Board of Physicians, in his official and individual capacity; EVELYN T. BEASLEY; HABIB BHUTTA; CARMEN M. CONTEE; RAMSAY FARAH; PAUL R. FLEURY; MOISES Z. FRAIMAN; KEVIN B. GEROLD; CHARLES GREENHOUSE; ROBERT G. HENNESSY; SAMUEL K. HIMMELRICH, SR.; RAY RUFF; NALLAN C. RAMAKRISHNA, M.D.; THERESA C. ROHRS, P.A.-C; HAROLD A. ROSE; GENE STEVENS; SUSAN T. STRAHAN, M.D.; GEORGE WILLIAMS, M.D.; DOUGLAS WRIGHT, M.D., Members of the of the Maryland Board of Physicians, in their official and individual capacities; C. IRVING PINDER, JR., Executive Director of the Maryland Board of Physicians, in his official and individual capacity; DELMARVA FOUNDATION; ADELE WILZACK, Chairman of the Board of Delmarva Foundation, in her official and individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:07- cv-00388-JFM) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Walton Keech, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Thomas T. Alspach, Easton, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Mark Davis, M.D., appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for default judgment and dismissing his civil

action in regard to a peer review process against all defendants.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Davis v. Knipp, No. 1:07-cv-00388-JFM (D. Md. filed May

1, 2007; entered May 2, 2007). 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

- 3 -