Case ID: f-appx_239/html/0826-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mark DAVIS, M.D., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. 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.
    No. 07-1505.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 30, 2007.
    Decided: Sept. 5, 2007.
    Mark Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Walton Keech, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; Thomas T. Alspach, Easton, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   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, 2007 WL 1308843 (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.