Court Opinion

ID: 9838000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:01:17.640386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.773946
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1076      Doc: 10          Filed: 09/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-1076

        BRENT CLARK,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00027-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: July 11, 2023                                          Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before HARRIS, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Brent Edward Clark, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1076      Doc: 10         Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Brent Clark appeals the district court’s order granting the United States’ motion for

        summary judgment, to strike, and for sanctions. We “review de novo a district court’s

        award of summary judgment, viewing the facts and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom

        in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Core Commc’ns, Inc. v. Verizon Md.

        LLC, 744 F.3d 310, 320 (4th Cir. 2014). “A summary judgment award is appropriate only

        when the record shows ‘that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the

        movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).

        The court’s decision to find an expert’s testimony inadmissible is reviewed for abuse of

        discretion. T.H.E. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 54 F.4th 805, 822 (4th Cir. 2022).

               After reviewing the record and Clark’s arguments on appeal, we affirm the district

        court’s order. We grant Clark’s motion for leave to file a supplemental informal brief. 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

                                                     2