Cassandra Harrison-Belk v. Richie Barnes

Filing 920090325

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1995

CASSANDRA HARRISON-BELK; BEVERLY JEAN HARRISON; TANQUONYA MOANEY, in her official capacity as Special Administratrix for the Estate of Laniee Marie Moaney, Plaintiffs ­ Appellees, and CYNTHIA DOLLARD; MARIE MOANEY, Plaintiffs, v. RICHIE D. BARNES, Defendant ­ Appellant, and ROCKHAVEN COMMUNITY CARE HOME, INCORPORATED, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00054-CMC)

Submitted:

February 20, 2009

Decided:

March 25, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richie D. Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Lovic Alston Brooks, III, BROOKS LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: Richie D. Barnes appeals the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees of $22,424, and costs of $1,494.30, to Appellees Tanquonya Cassandra Moaney, Harrison-Belk, acting as Beverly Jean Harrison, for and the

Special

Administratrix

Estate of Laniee Marie Moaney, resulting from their suit for payment of overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and

determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees to Appellees. See Hitachi Credit

America Corp. v. Signet Bank, 166 F.3d 614, 631 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting that a district court's decision to award attorneys' fees is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, HarrisonBelk v. Barnes, No. 3:07-cv-00054-CMC (D.S.C. July 31, 2008), and deny as moot Barnes's motion to stay the execution of

judgment. legal before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

contentions the court

would

process. AFFIRMED

3