UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY,

INCORPORATED,

Debtor.

LINDA R. WRIGHT, No. 98-1713

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST,

Trust-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge;

Blackwell N. Shelley, Bankruptcy Judge.

(CA-85-1307-R)

Submitted: September 15, 1998

Decided: October 16, 1998

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Linda R. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Orran Lee Brown, Sr., DALKON

SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Linda Wright, a Dalkon Shield Claimant, appeals the district

court's order denying her motion to set aside an alternative dispute

resolution (ADR) decision. We affirm.

Wright claimed that she was inserted with a Dalkon Shield in 1965.

It was removed in 1974. She asserted that the device caused pelvic

inflammatory disease, perforation, endometritis, uncontrolled bleeding, infertility, emotional injury, and pain and suffering. The Dalkon

Shield Claimants Trust contended that the intrauterine device (IUD)

Wright used was not a Dalkon Shield, because the device was not

commercially available until November 1969, well after Wright's

IUD was inserted.

Wright elected to resolve her claim through ADR. The referee concluded that Wright had not met her burden of proving that the device

she used was a Dalkon Shield. Therefore, she was not entitled to compensation for injuries caused by the Dalkon Shield.

Wright moved to vacate the ADR decision. The district court

denied the motion, finding that she was simply dissatisfied with the

referee's decision and that the referee had not committed flagrant misconduct in reaching his decision. Therefore, judicial review was not

appropriate. This appeal followed.

The decision of an ADR referee is "binding and final," and a

Dalkon Shield Claimant who proceeds to ADR generally relinquishes

the right to judicial review. See In re A.H. Robins, Inc. (Bledsoe v.

Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust), 112 F.3d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1997).

The ADR Agreement that Wright signed and the ADR Rules provide

no mechanism for judicial review of ADR decisions. Nonetheless, the

district court may grant review from an ADR decision"`where the

 2
moving party demonstrates flagrant referee misconduct by clear and

convincing evidence.'" Id. We review the district court's refusal to

vacate an ADR decision for abuse of discretion. See id.

Here, there was no abuse of discretion. The district court correctly

found that the referee did not commit flagrant misconduct of the type

envisioned by Bledsoe. Rather, the referee made a reasoned determination based on the evidence of record.

We accordingly affirm. 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