The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-1974•CORA HILL, Prophetess v. American Medical Association (ama)
01-1974Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 11, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1974
CORA HILL, Prophetess,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
WORLD DELIVERANCE HEALTH FOUNDATION, INCORPO-
RATED; TREE OF LIFE MINISTRIES,
Plaintiffs,
versus
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (AMA); AMERICAN
HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION (AHA); U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Office of AIDS
Research,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-00-182-1)
Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a
magistrate judge.
2
Cora Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Brenda Straub McClearn, SHARPLESS &
STAVOLA, P.A., Greensboro, North Carolina; Robert Joseph Morris,
SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, Raleigh,
North Carolina; John Warren Stone, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Cora Hill appeals the magistrate judge’s orders * granting the
Defendants’ motions to dismiss this action alleging that the De-
fendants “torted” the general public by leading it to believe that
there was no hope for those afflicted with HIV/AIDS. We have
reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s orders and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
magistrate judge. Hill v. American Med. Ass’n, No. CA-00-182-1
(M.D.N.C. Nov. 20, 2000 & June 12, 2001). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.