Monica Ball v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America

587 F. App'x 78
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 15, 2014
Docket13-2338
StatusUnpublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 587 F. App'x 78 (Monica Ball v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America) 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
Monica Ball v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, 587 F. App'x 78 (4th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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 (EJD.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.

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

Related

WILKINS v. GENZYME CORPORATION
D. Massachusetts, 2022
Knapp v. Zoetis Inc.
E.D. Virginia, 2021
Benedict v. Hankook Tire Co.
295 F. Supp. 3d 632 (E.D. Virginia, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
587 F. App'x 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monica-ball-v-takeda-pharmaceuticals-america-ca4-2014.