1:13-cv-00497-CMH-TCB) CHRISTINE CALUYO v. Davita Inc.; Davita Rx LLC

Filed: May 16, 2014
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2059
(1:13-cv-00497-CMH-TCB)
CHRISTINE CALUYO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVITA INC.; DAVITA RX LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
O R D E R
The Court amends its opinion filed May 5, 2014, as
follows:
On page 2, line 5 of text -- the word “statue” is
corrected to read “statute.”
For the Court – By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk

-- 1 of 3 --

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2059
CHRISTINE CALUYO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVITA INC.; DAVITA RX LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00497-CMH-TCB)
Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: May 5, 2014
Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason W. Fernandez, GREENBERG & BEDERMAN, LLP, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Appellant. Andrew Butz, Heather S. Deane, BONNER
KIERNAN TREBACH & CROCIATA, LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Christine Caluyo appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her civil complaint. We have reviewed parties’
briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error.
Although Caluyo contends that she should benefit from the
continuing treatment rule to toll the statute of limitations, we
reject this contention because her negligence claim does not
relate to “a particular condition [that] was improperly treated
and diagnosed.” Grubbs v. Rawls, 369 S.E.2d 683, 686 (Va. 1988)
(quoting Fenton v. Danaceau, 255 S.E.2d 349, 350 (Va. 1979).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Caluyo v. Davita Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00497-CMH-TCB (E.D.
Va. July 25, 2013). 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.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --