Tammy Fowler, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Ralph Owens v. Ssc Seneca Operating Company Llc, d/b/a Seneca Health

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1593
TAMMY FOWLER, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Ralph Owens,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SSC SENECA OPERATING COMPANY LLC, d/b/a Seneca Health and
Rehabilitation Center; SAVASENIORCARE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
LLC; SAVASENIORCARE CONSULTING LLC,
Defendants – Appellants,
and
SAVASENIORCARE, LLC; SSC EQUITY HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:21-cv-00430-HMH)
Submitted: March 30, 2022 Decided: July 26, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HARRIS, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
ON BRIEF: D. Jay Davis, Jr., James D. Gandy, III, Gaillard T. Dotterer, III, Russell G.
Hines, CLEMENT RIVERS, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellants. Stefan B.
Feidler, Eric M. Poulin, Roy T. Willey, IV, ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
SSC Seneca Operating Company LLC, SavaSeniorCare Administrative Services,
LLC, and SavaSeniorCare Consulting, LLC, appeal from the district court’s order denying
the motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration of Tammy Fowler’s civil action against
them filed in her capacity as the personal representative of the Estate of Ralph Owens, and
denying the motions to stay proceedings in the district court pending resolution of the
motion to compel arbitration. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the arguments
of the parties, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Fowler v. SSC Seneca Operating Co. LLC, No. 8:21-cv-00430-
HMH (D.S.C. Apr. 16, 2021). 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 --