Court Opinion

ID: 9929746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 21:01:01.610102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:34:22.394492
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2029      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-2029

        ERIKA JACOBS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, located at Carillion Roanoke Memorial Hospital 3rd
        Floor,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Robert S. Ballou, District Judge. (7:23-cv-00126-RSB)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 2, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Erika Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Thaller-Moran, Raleigh, North Carolina, Matthew
        Brady Tynan, BROOKS PIERCE, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2029       Doc: 11         Filed: 02/02/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Erika Jacobs appeals the district court’s orders (1) directing that her complaint be

        served on Quest Diagnostics’ registered agent after finding that the initial service of process

        was insufficient, and (2) granting Quest Diagnostics’ motion to compel arbitration and

        dismissing without prejudice Jacobs’ complaint. We have reviewed the record and discern

        no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Jacobs v. Quest

        Diagnostics, No. 7:23-cv-00126-RSB (W.D. Va., June 15, 2023; Aug. 16, 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

                                                      2