Case Name: Eva DAWSON, as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Dawson, and for the benefit of his heirs and in their own capacity, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, and Ralph H. Johnson Veterans Administration Medical Center; John G. Allison, M.D.; Mark A. Lockett, M.D., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-03
Citations: 272 F. App'x 246
Docket Number: No. 07-2093
Parties: Eva DAWSON, as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Dawson, and for the benefit of his heirs and in their own capacity, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee, and Ralph H. Johnson Veterans Administration Medical Center; John G. Allison, M.D.; Mark A. Lockett, M.D., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 246–247

Head Matter:
Eva DAWSON, as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Dawson, and for the benefit of his heirs and in their own capacity, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee, and Ralph H. Johnson Veterans Administration Medical Center; John G. Allison, M.D.; Mark A. Lockett, M.D., Defendants.
No. 07-2093.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 18, 2008.
Decided: April 3, 2008.
Eva Dawson, Appellant pro se. John Harris Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eva Dawson appeals the district court's order entering judgment in favor of the United States in her medical malpractice action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671-2680 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Dawson v. United, States, No. 2:04-cv-01027-DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 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.