Community Health Ass'n v. Atkinson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1067
DAVID J. RICE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSOCIATION, d/b/a Jackson
General Hospital,
Party in Interest,
versus
ROSE & ATKINSON, Attorneys at Law, a
partnership; MARK A. ATKINSON, Esquire;
HERSCHEL H. ROSE, III, Esquire; ANDREW L.
PATERNOSTRO, Esquire; JOHN J. POLAK, Esquire;
MARTIN R. SMITH, JR., Esquire,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,
Chief District Judge. (CA-00-943)
Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David J. Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. Crislip, Jill M.
Obenchain, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
David J. Rice appeals the district court’s order granting
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing Rice’s legal
malpractice claim. We affirm.
This Court reviews de novo a district court’s order granting
summary judgment and views the facts in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. Kubicko v. Ogden Logistics Servs., 181 F.3d
544, 551 (4th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is appropriate when no
genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Once the moving party discharges its burden by showing the absence
of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case, the nonmoving
party must come forward with specific facts showing a genuine issue
for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986);
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
586-87 (1986). Summary judgment will be granted unless a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence
presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48
(1986).
With these standards in mind, we affirm the district court’s
order dismissing Rice’s legal malpractice claim on the reasoning of
its memorandum opinion. See Rice v. Rose & Atkinson, 176 F. Supp.
2d 585 (S.D.W. Va. 2001). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4