Christian Pearson v. Elizabeth Panaguiton, 699 F. App'x 174

Christian Pearson, a federal inmate, sued under Bivens and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging negligent medical care while in federal custody.
He moved for appointment of counsel; the magistrate judge denied the motion.
The magistrate judge found Pearson’s FTCA/medical-malpractice claim required expert proof and that Pearson lacked the MPLA certificate of merit, recommending dismissal.
Pearson objected, arguing he wasn’t given an opportunity to cure the certificate-of-merit deficiency and that as an indigent inmate obtaining an expert is burdensome.
The district court accepted the magistrate’s recommendation, denied relief on Bivens and other claims, and denied appointment of counsel; it did not address Pearson’s objection regarding the certificate-of-merit finding.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated the FTCA dismissal, and remanded for consideration of Pearson’s objection; it otherwise affirmed the denial of relief and denied injunctive relief pending appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FTCA medical-malpractice claim requires expert testimony under West Virginia law	Pearson argued he should be excused or given chance to cure the certificate-of-merit requirement and that expert proof may be impracticable for an indigent inmate	Government/magistrate: MPLA requires expert proof and certificate of merit for medical malpractice claims	Court: Whether expert testimony was required is discretionary; magistrate found it required, but district court failed to address Pearson’s objection — FTCA dismissal vacated and remanded for consideration of the objection
Whether Pearson’s failure to file an MPLA certificate of merit is fatal to his FTCA claim	Pearson: lack of certificate should not auto-dismiss without opportunity to cure; expert may not be necessary if matter is within lay understanding	Magistrate: absence of certificate of merit is fatal when expert proof is required	Court: Remanded so district court can consider Pearson’s objection and the record before dismissing on that basis
Denial of appointment of counsel	Pearson sought counsel due to complexity and indigence	Defendants: no entitlement to counsel in civil cases; magistrate denied based on record	Court: Affirmed magistrate’s and district court’s denial of appointment of counsel (no reversible error)
Request for injunctive relief pending appeal	Pearson requested injunctive relief	Government opposed	Court: Denied injunctive relief pending appeal

Cibula v. United States, 664 F.3d 428 (4th Cir.) (FTCA applies law of the place where the negligent act occurred)
Banfi v. Am. Hosp. for Rehab., 529 S.E.2d 600 (W. Va.) (MPLA generally requires expert testimony in medical-malpractice claims)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S.) (established Bivens remedy against federal officers)