Marlene Robertson v. Prince William Hospital, No. 12-1608 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1608 MARLENE J. ROBERTSON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. PRINCE WILLIAM HOSPITAL, Defendant Appellee,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 summary judgment. futile, we reversible on Because conclude error Appellee s that in the the proposed district denying circumstances presented here. motion leave to amendment court to dismiss did amend or for would not be commit under the 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 disposition of her claims. regard to these claims the district court s We have reviewed the record with 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

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.