C. Holmes v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, Inc., No. 21-155 (4th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-155 C. HOLMES, Petitioner, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.; J. DOE #1 THROUGH J. DOE #X; SCOTT MCCARTHA; MS. SHIPMAN, Respondents. 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: June 24, 2021 Decided: June 29, 2021 Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. C. Holmes, Petitioner Pro Se. James Whittington Clement, James B. Hood, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: C. Holmes petitions for permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) the district court’s orders denying her motion for a de novo determination by an Article III judge and denying reconsideration. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). In order to be reviewed, the interlocutory orders must be certified by the district court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Because the district court did not certify the orders, we deny Holmes’ petition for permission to appeal. 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. PETITION DENIED 2
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.
