PEARSON v. PANAGUITON (2018)

Christian Pearson appeals the district court's opinion and order overruling his objections to the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendation and dismissing his claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (2012).^* On appeal, Pearson argues that he should be exempted from the prefiling screening requirements of the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act, W. Va. Code Ann. § 55-7B (2016) (LexisNexis 2016 & Supp. 2018). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Pearson such an exception. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pearson v. Panaguiton, No. 1:15-cv-07411, 2018 WL 1997757 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 27, 2018).

Pearson also seeks to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to appoint counsel. But we have already affirmed that element of the district court's opinion and order. Pearson, 699 F. App'x at 175. 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   We previously affirmed the district court's dismissal of Pearson's claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Pearson v. Panaguiton, 699 F. App'x 174, 175 (4th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, this appeal implicates only Pearson's FTCA medical malpractice claims.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.