George Angelich v. MedTrust, No. 13-2185 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2185 GEORGE DAVID ANGELICH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEDTRUST, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00042-LMB-TCB) Submitted: April 22, 2014 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. DIAZ, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 13, 2014 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl L. Crews, C. LOWELL CREWS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul W. Mengel III, Brian F. Wilbourn, Nichole L. DeVries, PILIEROMAZZA PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George David Angelich filed a tort action arising under Virginia law against his former employer, MedTrust. reasons stated from the bench, the district court For granted summary judgment in favor of MedTrust on all claims and denied Angelich s motion for a continuance. We affirm. This court review[s] the district court s award of summary judgment de novo, and consider[s] the evidence and all inferences fairly drawn from the evidence favorable to [the nonmoving party]. in the light most Carnell Constr. Corp. v. Danville Redev. & Hous. Auth., 745 F.3d 703, 716 (4th Cir. Mar. 6, 2014). Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Civ. P. 56(a). Fed. R. The relevant inquiry is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). Under Angelich, cannot Virginia law, establish a an at-will cause of employee, action for such as wrongful discharge unless his termination resulted from the employer s violation of public policy. 331 S.E.2d 797, 801 (Va. Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 1985). 2 We conclude that Angelich failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to MedTrust s violation of any such public policy. Summary judgment was appropriate on the remaining grounds because Angelich failed to show that MedTrust made a false statement, see Jordan v. Kollman, 612 S.E.2d 203, 206 (Va. 2002) ( True statements do not support a cause of action for defamation. ), intentionally interfered with a business expectancy, see Dunlap v. Cottman Transmission Sys., LLC, 754 S.E.2d 313, 318 (Va. 2014) (providing elements of cause of action for tortious interference with business expectancy), or engaged Harris in v. elements conduct that Kreutzer, 624 of intentional was outrageous S.E.2d 24, infliction 33 of and (Va. intolerable, see 2006) (providing emotional distress). Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Angelich s motion for a continuance. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
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.
