Monica L. Ball v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Incorporated

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2338
MONICA L. BALL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INCORPORATED; TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, a Japanese Corporation,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED; TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; TAKEDA AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC.; TAKEDA
GLOBAL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.; TAKEDA SAN
DIEGO, INC.; TAP PHARMACEUTICALS PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00168-JAG-MHL)
Submitted: November 26, 2014 Decided: December 15, 2014
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Monica L. Ball, Appellant Pro Se. Damon W.D. Wright, VENABLE,
LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Monica Ball filed a diversity civil action against
Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceutical
Company Limited, and related defendants, alleging product
liability and associated Virginia tort claims. On appeal, Ball
challenges the district court’s orders dismissing her original
complaint, in part with leave to amend; dismissing her amended
complaint with prejudice; and denying her post-judgment motions.
We confine our review to those issues fairly raised in the
opening brief. See Town of Nags Head v. Toloczko, 728 F.3d 391,
395 n.4 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that arguments not raised
in opening brief are waived). We have reviewed the record and
submissions of the parties and find no reversible error or abuse
of discretion in the district court’s challenged rulings.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Ball v. Takeda Pharms. Am., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00168-
JAG-MHL (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2013; Aug. 8, 2013; Oct. 1, 2013).
We deny Ball’s motions for appointment of counsel and for an
extension of time to file a reply brief. 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 --