Marlene Robertson v. Prince William Hospital

486 F. App'x 375
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 2, 2012
Docket12-1608
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 486 F. App'x 375 (Marlene Robertson v. Prince William Hospital) 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
Marlene Robertson v. Prince William Hospital, 486 F. App'x 375 (4th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marlene J. Robertson appeals the district court’s orders denying her motion to amend her complaint and dismissing in part and granting summary judgment in part on her complaint alleging a 28 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claim, a human trafficking claim, and related Virginia tort claims. On *376 appeal, Robertson argues that the district court improperly denied leave to amend following a hearing on Appellee’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Because the proposed amendment would be futile, we conclude that the district court did not commit reversible error in denying leave to amend under the circumstances presented here. See Katyle v. Penn Nat’l Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 471 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 115, 181 L.Ed.2d 39 (2011); Sound of Music Co. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 477 F.3d 910, 923-24 (7th Cir.2007); Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426-28 (4th Cir.2006) (en banc) (providing standard of review and factors to consider in denying leave to amend).

Robertson also challenges the district court’s disposition of her claims. We have reviewed the record with regard to these claims and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Robertson v. Prince William Hosp., No. 1:11-cv-00820-GBL-JFA, 2012 WL 1448101 (E.D.Va. Apr. 25, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Smith v. Centra Health, Inc.
W.D. Virginia, 2021

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
486 F. App'x 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marlene-robertson-v-prince-william-hospital-ca4-2012.