United States of America v. David M. Wasan Yi

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1083

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID M. WASAN YI,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

CITY P HARMAC Y, LLC; CITY PHARMACY OF CHARLES TOWN, INC.;
AMY WASAN YI ; ROGER LEWIS,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:16-cv-00024-JPB)

Submitted: December 30, 2019 Decided: February 20, 2020

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

2

David M. Wasanyi, Appellant Pro Se. Greg Thomas Kinskey, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virgini a,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

PER CURIAM:
Davi d M. Wasanyi appeals from the district court’s order granting summar y
judgment in favor of the United States and holding that Wasanyi violated the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-971
(2012). The court imposed a civil penalty of $335,670. Wasanyi challenges the judgment
on several bases but does not challenge the calculation of the civil penalty imposed.
Finding no error, we affirm.
We review “de novo the district court’s order granting summary judgment .”
Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 565 n.1 (4th Cir. 2015). “A
district court ‘shall grant summary judgment if the movant 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. at 568 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In
determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court “view[s] the facts and
all justifiable inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to . . . the nonmoving
party.” Id. at 565 n.1 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “the nonmoving party
must rely on more than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one
inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” Dash v.
Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013).
Wasanyi raised several challenges to the court’s determination that he ignored
obvious warning signs and filled illegitimate prescriptions and that this activity violated 21
C.F.R. § 1306.04 (2019) and 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(1) (2012), subjecting him to civil

4

penalties. These challenges included: that the district court judge was influenced agains t
him; that the Government deceived the court by citing requirements that prescribing
physicians must follow instead of pharmacists; that the district court did not allow Wasanyi
to adequately represent himself; that the Government expert’s affidavit was in error
regarding payment methods and discussion of opioids; that minority-owned pharmacie s
were targeted; that the Government relied on inapplicable statutes and statistics; that the
Government’s intention is to put minority-owned pharmacies out of business; that the civil
prosecution is frivolous because the Government investigator did not personally see
Wasanyi fill the prescriptions; that it is a violation of the West Virginia Code to refuse to
fill a legitimate prescription based on method of payment; that a pharmacist cannot
diagnose a patient to determine whether the prescription is for a legitimate purpose; that
this civil prosecution is a violation of the Fourth Amendment because the pharmacist and
patient-customers are minorities; and that the Pharmacist’s DEA manual should be the
determining proof of whether a prescription is legitimate.
We have carefully reviewed Wasanyi’s arguments, the parties’ filings, and the
record and find no reversible error. The errors Wasanyi raises on appeal are either
unsupported or contradicted by the evidence, not raised in the district court, or ignore the
facts and applicable law. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
United States v. Wasanyi, No. 3:16-cv-00024-JPB (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 19, 2017 & Dec. 21,
2018). We grant Wasanyi permission to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny Wasanyi ’s
petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

5

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument woul d
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED