Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital Corporation v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --