Case Name: Richard TYUS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Geneva Jones Gibbons, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER SOUTH, Ronald A. Shaw, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-12
Citations: 209 F. App'x 941
Docket Number: No. 06-12915
Parties: Richard TYUS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Geneva Jones Gibbons, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER SOUTH, Ronald A. Shaw, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUBINA, CARNES and COX, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 209
Pages: 941–942

Head Matter:
Richard TYUS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Geneva Jones Gibbons, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER SOUTH, Ronald A. Shaw, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-12915
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 12, 2006.
Richard Tyus, Montgomery, AL, pro se.
Benjamin J. Espy, Melton, Espy & Williams, Robert Austin Huffaker, Jr., Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A., Montgomery, AL, for DefendantsAppellees.
Before DUBINA, CARNES and COX, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard Tyus, personal representative of the Estate of Geneva Jones Gibbons, appeals the dismissal of his EMTALA claim against Baptist Medical Center South ("Baptist") and physicians Ronald A. Shaw, M.D., Julios Rios, M.D., and James Bradwell, M.D. (collectively, "the physician defendants").
While Tyus's notice of appeal could be construed to appeal the dismissal of the claim against the physician defendants, he makes no arguments in his appellate briefs regarding the physician defendants. Therefore, he has waived any basis for appealing the dismissal of the claim against the physician defendants.
As to the claim against Baptist, we find no reversible error in the district court's holding that Tyus is barred from bringing that EMTALA claim in a federal action because that claim arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts as those claims he previously pursued in Alabama state court. See Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1239, n. 8 (11th Cir. 1999); In re Justice Oaks II, Ltd., 898 F.2d 1544, 1550 (11th Cir.1990).
AFFIRMED.