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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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