John Kimble v. Rajesh Rajpal ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Se. Thomas Clyde Marriner,
COWDREY, THOMPSON & KARSTEN, PA, Easton, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. §§ 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. See
Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992). The Court of Appeals
of Maryland has concluded that the HCMCA does not violate the
Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under either
rational basis or intermediate scrutiny. See 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 the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed 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