Case Name: Rhonda T. BRANTLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ETHICON, INCORPORATED; Johnson & Johnson, Defendants-Appellees; Shelia L. Bracato, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ethicon, Incorporated; Johnson & Johnson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-24
Citations: 668 F. App'x 441
Docket Number: No. 16-1192, No. 16-1194
Parties: Rhonda T. BRANTLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ETHICON, INCORPORATED; Johnson & Johnson, Defendants-Appellees. Shelia L. Bracato, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ethicon, Incorporated; Johnson & Johnson, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
Rhonda T. BRANTLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ETHICON, INCORPORATED; Johnson & Johnson, Defendants-Appellees. Shelia L. Bracato, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ethicon, Incorporated; Johnson & Johnson, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-1192, No. 16-1194
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 12, 2016
Decided: August 24, 2016
Tracy W. Houck, Ron Riggle, HOUCK & RIGGLE, LLC, Ruston, Louisiana, for Appellants. Philip Combs, David B. Thomas, Daniel R. Higginbotham, THOMAS COMBS & SPANN, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; John C. Henegan, Sr., Christy Jones, Susanna Moore Moldo-veanu, BUTLER SNOW LLP, Ridgeland, Mississippi, for Appellees.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rhonda T. Brantley and Shelia L. Bra-cato appeal the district court's orders dismissing these actions for failure to timely effect service of process. We have reviewed the records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brantley v. Ethicon, Inc., Nos. 2:12-cv-02605, 2:12- md-02327, 2016 WL 305064 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 25, 2016); Bracato v. Ethicon, Inc., Nos. 2:12-cv-02697, 2:12-md-02327, 2016 WL 312366 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 25, 2016). 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