Naresh Arora v. Captain Jame
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cv-00018-JMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000080488]. Mailed to: Naresh C. Arora, Sudha Arora. [15-2265]
Appeal: 15-2265
Doc: 22
Filed: 05/12/2017
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2265
NARESH C. ARORA; SUDHA ARORA,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CAPTAIN
JAMES; REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER OF ORANGEBURG;
DENMARK TECHNICAL COLLEGE, an agency of state of South
Carolina, a governmental entity; CHIEF WILBUR WALLACE;
DONALD WILLIAMS; JOANN BOYD-SCOTLAND; AMBRISH LAVANIA,
individually (at their personal capacity) and as agents and
employees for Denmark Technical College; DOES 1 - 100, et
al,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (5:14-cv-00018-JMC)
Submitted:
March 31, 2016
Before GREGORY,
Judges.
Chief
Judge,
Decided:
and
SHEDD
and
May 12, 2017
KEENAN,
Circuit
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Naresh C. Arora; Sudha Arora, Appellants Pro Se.
Norma Anne
Turner Jett, NESS & JETT, LLC, Bamberg, South Carolina; Samuel
Appeal: 15-2265
Doc: 22
Filed: 05/12/2017
Pg: 2 of 5
F. Arthur, III, Carrie Appleton Fox, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN,
ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 15-2265
Doc: 22
Filed: 05/12/2017
Pg: 3 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Naresh and Sudha Arora appeal the district court’s order
(1)
adopting
the
summary
judgment
Center
of
magistrate
to
Captain
Orangeburg
and
judge’s
James
recommendation,
and
Calhoun
The
Regional
Counties
granting
Medical
(“TRMC”),
and
dismissing without prejudice * the Aroras’ claims against Denmark
Technical College, Chief Wilbur Wallace, Donald Williams, Joann
Boyd-Scotland, and Ambrish Lavania, and (2) denying the Aroras’
motions for stay and for sanctions.
district
court’s
order
The Aroras also appeal the
overruling
their
objection
to
the
magistrate judge’s denial of their motion to amend the complaint
to add a medical malpractice claim.
We affirm the district
court’s order listed in (1) and (2) for the reasons stated by
the
district
court.
Arora
v.
James,
No.
5:14-cv-00018-JMC
(D.S.C. Apr. 16, 2015; Sept. 24, 2015).
However, we vacate the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s order and denying the Aroras’ motion to amend
their complaint.
While “leave to amend should be freely given
when justice so requires,” a district court may deny a motion to
*
Because the Aroras could not cure the defect in their
complaint by amendment, the district court’s order is final and
appealable.
See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 807 F.3d
619, 623-26 (4th Cir. 2015) (discussing Domino Sugar Corp. v.
Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.
1993)).
3
Appeal: 15-2265
Doc: 22
Filed: 05/12/2017
Pg: 4 of 5
amend “when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing
party,” when the moving party has acted in bad faith or with a
dilatory motive, or when the amendment would be futile.
Laber
v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
“Generally,
we
review
a
district
court’s denial of a motion for leave to amend for abuse of
discretion, [b]ut where . . . the district court denied such a
motion on grounds of futility, we employ the same standard that
would apply to our review of a motion to dismiss.”
United
States ex rel. Ahumada v. NISH, 756 F.3d 268, 274 (4th Cir.
2014).
In their motion to amend, the Aroras sought to add a statelaw
claim
alleged
that
harassing
allowed
labeled
TRMC
patients
Wallace
hospital room.
medical
had
and
and
a
malpractice
duty
that
to
against
prevent
They
trespassers
TRMC
Williams
TRMC.
breached
that
to
trespass
in
duty
Naresh
from
when
it
Arora’s
The magistrate judge denied this portion of the
motion to amend as futile because the Aroras had failed to file
an
affidavit
of
an
expert
witness
as
required
for
medical
malpractice claims under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-79-125(A) (Supp.
2015).
The “distinction between medical malpractice and negligence
claims is subtle,” and, thus, “differentiating between the two
types of claims depends heavily on the facts of each individual
4
Appeal: 15-2265
Doc: 22
case.”
Filed: 05/12/2017
Pg: 5 of 5
Dawkins v. Union Hosp. Dist., 758 S.E.2d 501, 503-04
(S.C. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In Dawkins, the
Supreme Court of South Carolina held that an action against a
hospital related to “nonmedical, administrative, ministerial, or
routine
care”
sounds
in
malpractice.
Id. at 504.
as
medical
one
of
allegations
conclude
sounds
that
the
ordinary
not
medical
While the Aroras labeled their claim
malpractice,
in
negligence,
ordinary
proposed
the
substance
negligence.
amendment
We
was
of
their
therefore
not
futile.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court order adopting the
magistrate judge’s ruling and remand for further proceedings.
We express no opinion on the merits of the Aroras’ claim.
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
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?