Todd White v. ACell, Inc.

Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit violated Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment right to due process by denying his motion to amend his informal opening brief, thereby foreclosing appellate review of substantial legal and factual issues, in contravention of this Court’s holding in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962).

Whether the Fourth Circuit erred in affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Petitioner’s Maryland False Claims Act (MFCA) retaliation claim, where state and federal courts interpret the MFCA and federal False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), in pari materia, and whether the decision creates a circuit split by departing from Simmons v. United States, 279 F.2d 345 (4th Cir. 1960), and Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U.S. _(2024).

Whether the trial court’s exclusion of critical evidence and issuance of flawed jury instructions deprived Petitioner of a fair trial under the Due Process Clause, where evidentiary and instructional errors cumulatively undermined Petitioner’s statutory protections under the FCA and violated clearly established standards set forth in Sanjour v. EPA, 56 F.3d 85 (D.C. Cir. 1995), and Grant v. United Airlines, Inc., 73 F.4th 138 (4th Cir. 2023). II. OPINIONS BELOW The unpublished per curiam opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, affirming the judgment of the district court, is reproduced in Appendix A. The district court’s memorandum opinion and order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Respondent is reproduced in Appendix B, and the district court’s final judgment following a jury trial is reproduced in Appendix C. III. JURISDICTION On September 16th, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit entered judgment in Case No. 22-2198. Petitioner timely filed a petition for rehearing en banc on September 30, 2024, which was denied on October 16, 2024. In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 13.1, this petition is filed within 90 days of the final judgment. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1), which authorizes review of decisions of the courts of appeals by writ of certiorari. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 208-09 (2007) (holding that timely filing is a jurisdictional prerequisite); Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 527 (2003) (reiterating the 90-day window under Supreme Court Rules).