Securities & Exchange Commission v. Zandford , 114 F. App'x 118 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1389
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES ZANDFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95-
2826-AMD)
Submitted: October 22, 2004 Decided: December 3, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Zandford, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Sholar McDonald, Jacob
H. Stillman, SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Zandford appeals the district court’s order
granting the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) motion to
reinstate a partial grant of summary judgment following a remand
from the Supreme Court in SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813, 825
(2002).
Following remand from the Supreme Court, the SEC filed a
motion to reinstate the district court’s order granting partial
summary judgment to it. Zandford filed an opposition to that
motion, but failed to assert any substantive argument establishing
a material fact in dispute. Additionally, Zandford refused to make
such arguments at a telephonic status conference held by the
district court. When offered the opportunity to present argument,
in fact, he abruptly terminated the call. Zandford asserts that
there is a genuine issue of fact for the first time on appeal to
this court. However, because Zandford refused to make these
arguments in the district court, despite encouragement from the
court to do so, Zandford failed to meet his burden in opposition to
summary judgment, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324
(1986), and ultimately waived his right to appellate review, Muth
v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (stating that
issues raised for the first time on appeal generally will not be
considered absent plain error or a fundamental miscarriage of
justice).
- 2 -
Accordingly, although we grant Zandford’s motion to
supplement the record on appeal, we affirm the district court’s
order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -