Discovery Licensing, Inc. v. King's International Multimedia Co. , 260 F. App'x 537 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2280
DISCOVERY LICENSING, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KING’S INTERNATIONAL MULTIMEDIA COMPANY,
LIMITED,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:04-cv-
04055-RWT)
Submitted: October 10, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Philip F. Hudock, Reston, Virginia; James C.T. Hsia, McLean,
Virginia, for Appellant. Savalle C. Sims, Ross Q. Panko, ARENT FOX
LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
King’s International Multimedia Co., Ltd. (“King’s”),
appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment and
awarding damages and injunctive relief in favor of Discovery
Licensing, Inc. (“Discovery”), in this breach of contract action.
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and
find no reversible error in the court’s decision to grant summary
judgment in Discovery’s favor. To the extent King’s contends that
the affidavits submitted by Discovery in support of its summary
judgment motion did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e), we find
that King’s has waived its challenge by failing to file a motion to
strike the affidavits in the district court. Jones v.
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 69 F.3d 712, 718 (4th Cir. 1995).
We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial
of King’s’ request to extend discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(f), see Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d 191, 195 (4th Cir. 2006)
(stating standard of review), or in the court’s refusal to appoint
a special master, see Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 961 (D.C.
Cir. 1986) (stating standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court at the summary judgment hearing held on October 30,
2006, and in its subsequent written order. Discovery Licensing,
Inc. v. King’s Int’l Multimedia Co., Ltd., No. 8:04-cv-04055-RWT
(D. Md. filed Nov. 1, 2006 & entered Nov. 3, 2006). We dispense
- 2 -
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 -