Marjory Regan v. United States, No. 12-2484 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2484 MARJORY WAGNER REGAN, Plaintiff Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary, Department of Veteran Affairs; WILLIAM FEELEY, Director, Buffalo VA Medical Center; MICHAEL S. GRIMALDI, M.D., Buffalo VAMC; RUBEN CARTEJENA, M.D., Buffalo VAMC; JANE DOE 1, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; JOHN DOE # 1, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; JOHN DOE #2, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; JOHN DOE #3, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; JOHN DOE #4, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; JOHN DOE #5, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; JOHN DOE #6, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; JANE DOE #2, Staff Member Buffalo VAMC; JANE DOE #3, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; JANE DOE #4, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; JOHN DOE #7, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; JANE DOE #5, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; NANCY BENJAMIN, Buffalo VAMC; KATHY PHILLIPS, Buffalo VAMC; JANE DOE #6, Staff Member Cleveland VAMC; JANE DOE #7, Staff Member Cleveland VAMC; JOHN DOE #8, MD, Cleveland VAMC; JANE DOE #9, Office of Legal Council Buffalo VAMC; HENRY PATRONSKI, Patient Advocate, Buffalo VAMC; JANE DOE #10, Medical Staff Buffalo VAMC; AMY T. QUINLIVAN, M.D., Buffalo VAMC; M. T. SRIKRISHNA, M.D., Buffalo VAMC; SAMUEL J. VICARETI, Buffalo VAMC; JACQUELIN BRICKELMAN, Buffalo VAMC; HONG-SHAUR SHIEH, Buffalo VAMC; LISA N. NICOLAS, M.D., Buffalo VAMC; JOANNE H. NELSON, LPN, Buffalo VAMC; MARGARET DUNN, Buffalo VAMC; GEORGE P. BOUCHER, Buffalo VAMC; BERNADINE H. DRAFFIN-PLUMMER, Buffalo VAMC; GREGORY PISKOR, Buffalo VAMC; GEORGE J. BURNETT, M.D., Buffalo VAMC; JOSEPH J. BASO, Buffalo VAMC; JANE DOE #11, Quality Management, Buffalo VAMC; JOHN DOE #11, Chief of Medicine, Buffalo VAMC; MICHAEL S. FINEGAN, Acting Director, Buffalo VAMC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:11-cv-00422-D) Submitted: March 25, 2013 Decided: April 9, 2013 Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marjory Wagner Regan, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Marjory order granting under the Wagner Regan Defendants Federal Tort appeals motion Claims to Act the district dismiss court s Regan s ( FTCA ), 28 action U.S.C.A. ยงยง 1346(b)(1), 2671 - 2680 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Regan first argues that the district court failed to provide her with adequate notice of the time limitations for filing her sur-reply to the motion to dismiss and her objections to the magistrate judge s memorandum and recommendation. However, the record plainly establishes that she was provided clear notice of the deadlines applicable to both. The record also provides no evidence that Regan requested an extension of time to file supplemental objections to the magistrate judge s memorandum additional time to file her sur-reply. and recommendation, or Thus, we conclude that Regan is not entitled to relief on this basis. Regan also challenges the district court s conclusions that her complaint was untimely under the statute of limitations applicable to FTCA claims and that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ( HIPAA ) does not provide a private right of action related to the amendment of protected health information. objections to recommendation. the Regan did not raise these issues in her magistrate judge s memorandum and The timely filing of specific objections to a 3 magistrate judge s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). If a party does not file specific written objections to a finding of fact or conclusion of law proposed by the magistrate judge, the party is deemed to have waived her right to appellate review of that particular finding of fact or conclusion of law made by the district court. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007). Applying these principles, we conclude Regan has waived appellate review of her remaining issues on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this Court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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.