Court Opinion

ID: 9895032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 21:00:59.226263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:13.381789
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1043      Doc: 20         Filed: 11/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1043

        C. HOLMES,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.; J. DOE #1
        THROUGH J. DOE #X; SCOTT MCCARTHA; MS. SHIPMAN,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:20-cv-00004-BHH-MHC)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 2, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        C. Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. James B. Hood, Kathryn N. Tanner, HOOD LAW FIRM,
        LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1043      Doc: 20          Filed: 11/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               C. Holmes appeals the district court’s orders (1) denying her motion to restore or

        reopen a civil action that she had voluntarily dismissed and to stay proceedings pending

        resolution of an earlier appeal, and (2) denying her motions for reconsideration of the denial

        of her motion to restore or reopen her case and for leave to amend her complaint. We have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s orders. Holmes v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of S.C., Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00004-BHH-

        MHC (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 2022; Dec. 13, 2022). We grant Holmes’ motion to file an

        oversized informal brief. 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

               *
                 Holmes’ reliance on South Carolina procedural rules is misplaced. See
        McFarland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 810 F.3d 273, 284 (4th Cir. 2016) (“Federal courts
        apply federal rules of procedure.”).

                                                      2