Case Name: Marlene J. ROBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRINCE WILLIAM HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee, and Prince William Medical Center, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-02
Citations: 486 F. App'x 375
Docket Number: No. 12-1608
Parties: Marlene J. ROBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRINCE WILLIAM HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee, and Prince William Medical Center, Defendant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 486
Pages: 375–376

Head Matter:
Marlene J. ROBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRINCE WILLIAM HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee, and Prince William Medical Center, Defendant.
No. 12-1608.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 26, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 2, 2012.
Marlene J. Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Olszewski, Paul Thomas Walk-inshaw, Hancock, Daniel, Johnson & Na-gle, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marlene J. Robertson appeals the district court's orders denying her motion to amend her complaint and dismissing in part and granting summary judgment in part on her complaint alleging a 28 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claim, a human trafficking claim, and related Virginia tort claims. On appeal, Robertson argues that the district court improperly denied leave to amend following a hearing on Appellee's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Because the proposed amendment would be futile, we conclude that the district court did not commit reversible error in denying leave to amend under the circumstances presented here. See Katyle v. Penn Nat'l Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 471 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 115, 181 L.Ed.2d 39 (2011); Sound of Music Co. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 477 F.3d 910, 923-24 (7th Cir.2007); Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426-28 (4th Cir.2006) (en banc) (providing standard of review and factors to consider in denying leave to amend).
Robertson also challenges the district court's disposition of her claims. We have reviewed the record with regard to these claims and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Robertson v. Prince William Hosp., No. 1:11-cv-00820-GBL-JFA, 2012 WL 1448101 (E.D.Va. Apr. 25, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.