John Kimble v. Rajesh Rajpal, No. 12-2152 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2152 JOHN B. KIMBLE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. M.D. RAJESH K. RAJPAL; SEE CLEARLY VISION LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:11-cv-01457-RWT) Submitted: January 28, 2013 Decided: February 28, 2013 Before DUNCAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John B. Kimble, Appellant Pro COWDREY, THOMPSON & KARSTEN, Appellees. Se. PA, Thomas Clyde Marriner, Easton, Maryland, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John B. Kimble appeals the district court s orders dismissing his civil action without prejudice for failure to comply with the requirements of Maryland s Health Care Malpractice Claims Act ( HCMCA ), Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. ยงยง 3-2A-01 to 3-2A-10 (West 2012), and denying reconsideration. On appeal, Kimble repeats his argument, first raised in his motion for reconsideration, that the HCMCA violates the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Insofar as this argument was properly raised below, we conclude the district court committed no error in rejecting it. Kimble does not invoke a suspect classification nor claim that the HCMCA burdens a fundamental right; thus, rational basis scrutiny applies. Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992). See The Court of Appeals of Maryland has concluded that the HCMCA does not violate the Fourteenth rational Amendment basis or right to equal intermediate protection scrutiny. under See either Attorney General v. Johnson, 385 A.2d 57, 76-81 (Md. 1978), overruled on other grounds by Newell v. Richards, 594 A.2d 1152 (Md. 1991). We find Johnson s analysis persuasive here. Turning to Kimble s remaining arguments that the HCMCA does not apply to his case and that the action should not have been dismissed for failure to comply with HCMCA requirements, we 2 have reviewed Accordingly, the record although we and grant find no reversible leave to proceed error. in forma pauperis, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Kimble v. Rajpal, No. 8:11-cv-01457-RWT (D. Md. Aug. 8 & Aug. 28, 2012); see Lewis v. Waletzky, 31 A.3d 123, 125, 129-30, 135 (Md. 2011). 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 3