Nancy Fleming v. Boston Scientific Corporation , 627 F. App'x 231 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1456
NANCY B. FLEMING; GARY FLEMING,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:12-cv-05131)
Submitted: October 30, 2015 Decided: December 28, 2015
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony J. Majestro, POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellants. Daniel B. Rogers, SHOOK, HARDY &
BACON L.L.P., Miami, Florida; Michael Bonasso, FLAHERTY
SENSABAUGH & BONASSO PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Lindsey M.
Saad, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO PLLC, Morgantown, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nancy and Gary Fleming appeal the district court’s order
dismissing their lawsuit, one of many in multidistrict
litigation, arising out of injuries sustained from transvaginal
mesh manufactured by Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation
(BSC). Applying Florida law, the district court granted BSC’s
motion for summary judgment to dismiss their claims as to the
Pinnacle as barred by the applicable statute of limitations and
dismissing their claims as to Obtryx for failure to present
evidence regarding causation.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, “viewing all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Smith v.
Gilchrist, 749 F.3d 302, 307 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate only when there
is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Seremeth v. Bd. of Cnty.
Comm’rs Frederick Cnty., 673 F.3d 333, 336 (4th Cir. 2012). The
relevant inquiry on summary judgment 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). An otherwise properly supported summary
judgment motion will not be defeated by the existence of some
2
factual dispute, however; only disputes over facts that might
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will
properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Id. at 248.
Indeed, to withstand a summary judgment motion, the non-moving
party must produce competent evidence sufficient to reveal the
existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
We have thoroughly reviewed the district court’s order, the
parties’ briefs, and the materials submitted on appeal. We
conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment to the Defendant on all claims. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Fleming v. Boston
Scientific Corp., No. 2:12-cv-05131 (S.D. W. Va., Mar. 26,
2015). 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