Kabil Djenasevic v. DOJ, No. 16-6085 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6085 KABIL ANTON DJENASEVIC, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED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 Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Kabil Anton Djenasevic appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying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 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
