Kabil Djenasevic v. DOJ

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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