Court Opinion

ID: 9951463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-16 21:00:44.4323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:34.502298
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1006      Doc: 5        Filed: 03/15/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 24-1006

        PACITA D. WHATLEY; REVEREND DR. SAMUEL T. WHATLEY; SAMUEL
        T. WHATLEY, II,

                            Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                     v.

        OAKBROOK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (2:23-cv-02274-SAL)

        Submitted: March 12, 2024                                         Decided: March 15, 2024

        Before GREGORY, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Pacita D. Whatley, Samuel T. Whatley, Samuel T. Whatley, II, Appellants Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1006      Doc: 5        Filed: 03/15/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Pacita D. Whatley, Reverend Dr. Samuel T. Whatley, and Samuel T. Whatley II,

        appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

        dismissing without prejudice ∗ the Whatleys’ action alleging violations of the False Claims

        Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 to 3733. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Whatley v. Oakbrook Health &

        Rehab. Ctr., No. 2:23-cv-02274-SAL (D.S.C. Dec. 13, 2023). 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

               ∗
                The district court’s dismissal without prejudice is a final order because the court
        dismissed the complaint “without granting leave to amend.” Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790,
        791 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).

                                                    2