Naresh Arora v. Captain Jame
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cv-00018-JMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency . Mailed to: Naresh C. Arora, Sudha Arora. [15-2265]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
NARESH C. ARORA; SUDHA ARORA,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
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
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
J. Michelle Childs, District
March 31, 2016
May 12, 2017
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Naresh C. Arora; Sudha Arora, Appellants Pro Se.
Turner Jett, NESS & JETT, LLC, Bamberg, South Carolina; Samuel
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 5
Naresh and Sudha Arora appeal the district court’s order
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.
The Aroras also appeal 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
(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
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
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.
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.
v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal
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.”
States ex rel. Ahumada v. NISH, 756 F.3d 268, 274 (4th Cir.
In their motion to amend, the Aroras sought to add a statelaw
The magistrate judge denied this portion of the
motion to amend as futile because the Aroras had failed to file
malpractice claims under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-79-125(A) (Supp.
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
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
Id. at 504.
While the Aroras labeled their claim
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
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?