Kabil Djenasevic v. DOJ


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cv-14596. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999903343]. Mailed to: Appellant. [16-6085]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6085 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/03/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6085 KABIL ANTON DJENASEVIC, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION BECKLEY HEALTH SERVICE DEPARTMENT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees, and DR. HUGHES, DDS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:14-cv-14596) Submitted: July 20, 2016 Decided: August 3, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Appeal: 16-6085 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/03/2016 Pg: 2 of 4 Kabil Anton Djenasevic, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-6085 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/03/2016 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: Kabil Anton Djenasevic appeals the district court’s orders accepting the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 complaint. moot based on its dismissal of his original That dismissal was, however, vacated by this court’s decision in Djenasevic v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 604 F. App’x 328 (4th Cir. June 16, 2015) (No. 15-6076). On remand, the court did not directly rule on the request to amend. Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that Federal “[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.” 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 Djenasevic’s request and any Government response. 3 address Appeal: 16-6085 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/03/2016 Pg: 4 of 4 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 (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 4

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?