Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1785

CAMDEN-CLARK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph R. Goodwin,
Chief District Judge. (6:10-cv-01258)

Submitted: February 28, 2012 Decided: March 7, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dino S. Colombo, Travis T. Mohler, COLOMBO & STUHR, PLLC,
Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. D.C. Offutt, Jr.,
OFFUTT NORD, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital Corporation

(Camden-Clark) appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company

(St. Paul) in Camden-Clark’s action for a declaratory judgment

of insurance coverage.

We review de novo a district court’s order granting

summary judgment, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable

inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party. Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th

Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 398 (2011). Summary judgment

shall be granted when “there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A district court should grant

summary judgment 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, 248 (1986).

We have reviewed the briefs and joint appendix and

applicable case law and find no reversible error in the district

court’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. Camden-Clark Mem. Hosp. Corp. v. St.

Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., No. 6:10-cv-01258 (S.D. W. Va.

June 28, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3