Ford v. Mansfield , 407 F. App'x 661 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1254
MICHAEL FORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES MANSFIELD, Esq.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
ZALCO REALTY, INCORPORATED; MDV MAINTENANCE, INCORPORATED;
HORIZON HOUSE CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS; DAVID FAISON; ERIC
MUCKLOW; VIRGINIA A. SMITH,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:08-cv-01318-LO-TRJ)
Submitted: December 20, 2010 Decided: January 12, 2011
Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lynne Bernabei, Alan R. Kabat, Andrea Loveless, Peter M. Whelan,
BERNABEI & WACHTEL, PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Michael L. Foreman,
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, University Park, Pennsylvania;
Sarah Crawford, LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. David D. Hudgins, Robert E. Draim, Reese
A. Pearson, HUDGINS LAW FIRM, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Ford appeals the district court’s order
granting James Mansfield’s summary judgment motion on Ford’s 42
U.S.C. § 1981 (2006) claims alleging racial discrimination and
harassment, and granting Mansfield’s motion to strike Ford’s
claim for emotional distress damages. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order. * Ford v. Mansfield, No. 1:08-cv-01318-
LO-TRJ (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 1, 2010; entered Feb. 2, 2010). 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
*
Even assuming, arguendo, that the district court
incorrectly analyzed Ford’s § 1981 discrimination claim against
Mansfield as a wrongful termination claim rather than an
interference with contractual relations claim, given the paucity
of direct or circumstantial evidence that Mansfield’s actions
were taken because of Ford’s race, we affirm the district
court’s decision to grant Mansfield summary judgment. See Suter
v. United States, 441 F.3d 306, 310 (4th Cir. 2006) (reiterating
that the court may affirm on any grounds apparent from the
record).
3