Karen Huston; Verlon Huston v. Johnson & Johnson; Ethicon, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1219
KAREN HUSTON; VERLON HUSTON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; ETHICON, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:13-cv-01222; 2:12-md-02327)
Submitted: October 28, 2014 Decided: November 10, 2014
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James H. Cook, DUTTON, BRAUN, STAACK & HELLMAN, PLC., Waterloo,
Iowa, for Appellants. David B. Thomas, Philip J. Combs, Daniel
R. Higginbotham, THOMAS COMBS & SPANN, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia; Susanna M. Moldoveanu, BUTLER, SNOW, O’MARA, STEVENS &
CANNADA, PLLC, Memphis, Tennessee; Christy D. Jones, John C.
Henegan, Sr., BUTLER, SNOW, O’MARA, STEVENS & CANNADA, PLLC,
Ridgeland, Mississippi, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Karen Huston and Verlon Huston appeal the district
court’s order dismissing this action without prejudice for
failure to comply with PreTrial Order 17. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(f)(1)(C), 37(b)(2)(A)(v). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Huston v. Johnson, Nos.
2:13-cv-01222; 2:12-md-02327 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 10, 2014).* 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
* Three of Huston’s claims on appeal were not raised below
and are waived. See Flores v. Ethicon, Inc., 563 F. App’x 266,
270 n.8 (4th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we have not addressed her
contentions that: dismissal of the action violates Fed. R. Civ.
P. 11 and Multi-District Litigation Rule 10.15; Pretrial Order
17 violates due process; and Pretrial Order 17 conflicts with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

-- 2 of 2 --