Djenasevic v. United States Department of Justice

Fourth Circuit

Djenasevic v. United States Department of Justice

667 F. App'x 818

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 3, 2016

Docket16-6085

StatusUnpublished

This text of 667 F. App'x 818 (Djenasevic v. United States Department of Justice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Djenasevic v. United States Department of Justice, 667 F. App'x 818 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kabil Anton Djenasevic appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680 (2012), and denying his request for leave to amend his complaint.

The district court originally rejected Djenasevic’s request to amend as moot based on its dismissal of his original complaint. That dismissal was, however, vacated by this court’s decision in Djenasevic v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 604 Fed.Appx. 328 (4th Cir. June 16, 2015) (No. 15-6076). On remand, the court did not directly rule on the request to amend. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that !,[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires,” which we have construed to mean “that leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would have been futile.” *819 Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the district court has not ruled on the merits of Djenasevic’s request to amend, we remand for the district court to specifically address Djena-sevic’s request and any Government response.

Turning to Djenasevic’s FTCA claim, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the disposition of that claim for the reasons stated by the district court. Djenasevic v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 5:14-cv-14596, 2016 WL 111468 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 11, 2016).

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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kabil Anton Djenasevic appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680 (2012), and denying his request for leave to amend his complaint.

The district court originally rejected Djenasevic’s request to amend as moot based on its dismissal of his original complaint. That dismissal was, however, vacated by this court’s decision in Djenasevic v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 604 Fed.Appx. 328 (4th Cir. June 16, 2015) (No. 15-6076). On remand, the court did not directly rule on the request to amend. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that !,[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires,” which we have construed to mean “that leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would have been futile.” *819 Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the district court has not ruled on the merits of Djenasevic’s request to amend, we remand for the district court to specifically address Djena-sevic’s request and any Government response.

Turning to Djenasevic’s FTCA claim, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the disposition of that claim for the reasons stated by the district court. Djenasevic v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 5:14-cv-14596, 2016 WL 111468 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 11, 2016).

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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/djenasevic-v-united-states-department-of-justice-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack