Marlene Robertson v. Prince William Hospital , 486 F. App'x 375 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1608
MARLENE J. ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PRINCE WILLIAM HOSPITAL,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
PRINCE WILLIAM MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:11-cv-00820-GBL-JFA)
Submitted: September 26, 2012 Decided: November 2, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marlene J. Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Olszewski,
Paul Thomas Walkinshaw, HANCOCK, DANIEL, JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC,
Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marlene J. Robertson appeals the district court’s
orders denying her motion to amend her complaint and dismissing
in part and granting summary judgment in part on her complaint
alleging a 28 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claim, a human trafficking
claim, and related Virginia tort claims. On appeal, Robertson
argues that the district court improperly denied leave to amend
following a hearing on Appellee’s motion to dismiss or for
summary judgment. Because the proposed amendment would be
futile, we conclude that the district court did not commit
reversible error in denying leave to amend under the
circumstances presented here. See Katyle v. Penn Nat’l Gaming,
Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 471 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.
Ct. 115 (2011); Sound of Music Co. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co.,
477 F.3d 910, 923-24 (7th Cir. 2007); Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d
404, 426-28 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (providing standard of
review and factors to consider in denying leave to amend).
Robertson also challenges the district court’s
disposition of her claims. We have reviewed the record with
regard to these claims and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Robertson v. Prince William Hosp., No. 1:11-cv-00820-
GBL-JFA (E.D. Va. Apr. 25, 2012). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3