Proa v. NRT Mid-Atlantic, Inc. , 398 F. App'x 882 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1727
SEAN PROA; MARGARET JORDAN; GARY S. SCHIFF,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
NRT MID-ATLANTIC, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Coldwell Banker
Residential Brokerage; NRT INCORPORATED; ANGELA SHEARER;
SARAH SINNICKSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-1816
SEAN PROA; MARGARET JORDAN; GARY S. SCHIFF,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
NRT MID-ATLANTIC, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Coldwell Banker
Residential Brokerage; NRT INCORPORATED; ANGELA SHEARER;
SARAH SINNICKSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-1969
SEAN PROA; MARGARET JORDAN; GARY S. SCHIFF,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
NRT MID-ATLANTIC, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Coldwell Banker
Residential Brokerage; NRT INCORPORATED; ANGELA SHEARER;
SARAH SINNICKSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge.
(1:05-cv-02157-AMD)
Submitted: September 10, 2010 Decided: October 18, 2010
Before WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Robert J. CONRAD, Jr., Chief United States District Judge
for the Western District of North Carolina, sitting by
designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William T. Coleman, III, Sheryl S. Levy, BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Patrick J. Massari, LAW OFFICE OF
PATRICK J. MASSARI, Washington, D.C.,; Stephen A. Saltzburg,
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, Washington, D.C., for
Appellants. Joseph P. Harkins, Erik C. Johnson, Steven E.
Kaplan, LITTLER MENDELSON, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In this consolidated appeal, Sean Proa, Margaret Jordan,
and Gary Schiff (collectively Plaintiffs) challenge the district
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of NRT Mid-Atlantic,
LLC (d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage), NRT Inc.,
Angela Shearer, and Sarah Sinnickson (collectively Defendants)
with respect to their discrimination and retaliation claims
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiffs
also challenge the denial of their discovery motion to compel
certain documents and the imposition of monetary sanctions by
the magistrate judge and the district court.
Having considered the parties’ briefs and the joint
appendix, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
on the reasoning of the district court as set forth in its
carefully crafted and thorough opinions and order. See Proa v.
NRT Mid Atlantic, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 209 (D.Md. July 1,
2009); Proa v. NRT Mid Atlantic, Inc., 618 F. Supp. 2d 447(D.Md. May 27, 2009); Proa v. NRT Mid Atlantic, Inc., 608 F.
Supp. 2d 690 (D.Md. April 20, 2009); (J.A. 681-82) (Order filed
May 27, 2009, Docket Entry 227). We deny Plaintiffs’ motion for
a declaration that the appellate record include the Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) depositions and other papers
attached as exhibits to Plaintiffs’ emergency motion to
- 3 -
supplement the record filed with the district court. We also
deny Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ claims for
violating Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(7) and
(9)(A).
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
- 4 -