Case Name: In re ETHICON, INC., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 2327). Sharon Weer; Thomas Weer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ethicon, Incorporated; Ethicon, L.L.C.; Johnson & Johnson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-06
Citations: 643 F. App'x 304
Docket Number: No. 15-1951
Parties: In re ETHICON, INC., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 2327). Sharon Weer; Thomas Weer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ethicon, Incorporated; Ethicon, L.L.C.; Johnson & Johnson, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 643
Pages: 304–305

Head Matter:
In re ETHICON, INC., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL No. 2327). Sharon Weer; Thomas Weer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ethicon, Incorporated; Ethicon, L.L.C.; Johnson & Johnson, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-1951.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2016.
Decided: April 6, 2016.
Douglas R. Plymale, Dugan Law Firm, PLC, New Orleans, Louisiana, for Appellants. David B. Thomas, Daniel R. Higginbotham, Thomas Combs & Spann PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Christy Jones, John C. Henegan, Sr., Susanna Moore Moldoveanu, Butler Snow LLP, Ridgeland, Mississippi, for Appellees.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sharon Weer and Thomas Weer appeal the district court's order dismissing this action without prejudice because the Weers failed to timely effect service of process. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district, court. Weer v. Ethicon, Inc., Nos. 2:13-cv-03792; 2:12-md-02327 (S.D.W.Va. July 23, 2015). 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.