Lokesh Vuyyuru v. Gopinath Jadhav, No. 11-2050 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2050 LOKESH VUYYURU, M.D.; VIRGINIA GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES PC; VIRGINIA TIMES, INC., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. GOPINATH JADHAV, M.D.; COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.; PETERSBURG HOSPITAL CO., LLC, d/b/a Southside Regional Medical Center; COLUMBIA/HCA JOHN RANDOLPH, INC.; ANANT DAMLE, M.D.; JUDITH W. JADGMANN, in official capacity as then acting Virginia Attorney General; DAVID FIKSE; LINDA AULT; FRANK W. PEDROTTY; WILLIAM HARP, M.D.; ROBERT NEBIKER; JOHN STANWIX; KAMLESH DAVE, M.D.; ROBERT F. MCDONNELL, in his official capacity as then Virginia Attorney General; SHARAD SARAIYA, M.D., Defendants Appellees, and SOUTHSIDE GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES, LTD; PETERSBURG HOSPITAL, INC., d/b/a Southside Regional Medical Center; THE CAMERON FOUNDATION, a Virginia Nonprofit Corporation; VIRGINIA BOARD OF MEDICINE; JERRY KILGORE, in former and official capacity and in individual capacity as Virginia Attorney General; DAVID DUNHAM; STEPHEN E. HERETICK; LYNN AUSTIN; AKSHAY DAVE, M.D.; JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1 TO 10, Defendants. ----------------------------------------MICHAEL GOLDING, M.D.; ADDAGADDA C. RAO, M.D., CHRISTOPHER T. MALLAVARAPU, Amici Supporting Appellants. M.D.; Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:10-cv-00173-JRS) Argued: September 18, 2012 Before TRAXLER, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and DIAZ and December 27, 2012 THACKER, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Mick G. Harrison, Bloomington, Indiana, for Appellants. Rudolph W. Savich, Bloomington, Indiana, for Amici Supporting Appellants. Wesley Glenn Russell, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; William Benjamin Pace, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Steven D. Smith, SD SMITH, ESQUIRE, PLLC, Blacksburg, Virginia, for Appellants. J. William Boland, Nathan A. Kottkamp, Jeremy S. Byrum, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees Columbia/HCA John Randolph, Incorporated, Linda Ault, and Sharad Saraiya, M.D.; Martin A. Donlan, Jr., WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee Gopinath Jadhav, M.D.; B. Page Gravely, Jr., Emily M. Scott, HANCOCK, DANIEL, JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees Petersburg Hospital Company, LLC, Community Health Systems Professional Services, Incorporated, Kamlesh Dave, M.D., and David Fikse; Stephen D. Rosenthal, David E. Constine, III, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee Anant Damle, M.D.; John D. Gilbody, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees Robert F. McDonnell, Judith W. Jagdmann, Francis Walter Pedrotty, III, William Harp, M.D., Robert Nebiker, and John Stanwix. Kara L. Reagan, STAFFORD LAW OFFICE, LLC, Bloomington, Indiana, for Amici Supporting Appellants. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Lokesh Associates PC, Vuyyuru, and M.D., Virginia Virginia Times, Inc., Gastroenterology appeal from the district court s various orders (1) dismissing their complaint, (2) imposing sanctions and a pre-filing injunction, (3) denying their motion to vacate, (4) denying their motion to reconsider, (5) denying their motion for disclosure from the court, and (6) denying their motion to disqualify the district court judge. have carefully reviewed the record in this case and We have considered the arguments made by the Appellants and their amici, both in their briefs and at oral argument. We find no reversible error and, therefore, affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, No. 3:10-cv-173 (E.D. Va. April 19, 2011 & Aug. 30, 2011). We also deny the Appellees pending motion for sanctions and deny, as moot, the Appellants related motion to strike. AFFIRMED 3
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.
