Levester Thompson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Wise General Hospital; Norton Community Hospital and Longterm Care Facility; St. Mary's Hospital,incorporated, Defendants-appellees,andruby Salyer; A.w. North; Charles P. Maine; Isam Zebdah;roldolfo Cartegena; O. David Bevins; Marty Prince;charles Fulton; Ann Christina Sullivan; Likitlerschlolarn; Thongdang Banchuin, Defendants, 896 F.2d 547 (4th Cir. 1990)
Annotate this CaseLevester Thompson, appellant pro se.
Elsey Allen Harris, III, Mullins, Thomason & Harris; William W. Eskridge, Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones; D. Stan Barnhill, Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, for appellees.
Before SPROUSE and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and HARRISON L. WINTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Dr. Levester Thompson appeals from the district court's dismissal of his complaint against three hospitals arising out of the termination of his hospital privileges.1 Thompson's complaint alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and the Sherman Antitrust Act, and also asserted pendent state claims.
We find ourselves in agreement with the opinion of the district court disposing of these claims, Thompson v. Wise General Hospital, 707 F. Supp. 849 (W.D. Va. 1989), and find Thompson's contentions on appeal without merit. With respect to the Sec. 1981 claims, we note that they are foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 57 U.S.L.W. 4705 (U.S. June 15, 1989) (No. 87-107), as Thompson has not alleged discrimination in the making or enforcement of a contract within the meaning of that decision.
Because the facts and arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the Court, we dispense with oral argument. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
We note that the appeal is timely only as to the hospitals and not as to individual defendants dismissed by an earlier order, which was made final in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Tripati, 769 F.2d 507 (8th Cir. 1985)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
