Court Opinion

ID: 9412378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 21:01:07.175832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:09.758202
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1297      Doc: 15         Filed: 07/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1297

        BARBARA A. BEAVER,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        PFIZER INC.,
                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-00141-MR)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                          Decided: July 28, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Barbara A. Beaver, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Francis Raiola, KIBLER FOWLER &
        CAVE LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1297      Doc: 15         Filed: 07/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Barbara A. Beaver appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to

        dismiss and dismissing her complaint raising state law negligence claims. We have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        order, Beaver v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00141-MR (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2023), as modified

        to reflect dismissal without prejudice, see King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 225 (4th Cir.

        2016). We deny Beaver’s motion for a waiver of docket viewing fees, and 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 AS MODIFIED

                                                     2