Full text
Brent Clark v. United States
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 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.