Venus Springs v. Ally Financial, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cv-00311-MOC-DCK. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998928075] [12-1258]

Appeal: 12-1258

Doc: 28

Filed: 08/30/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1258

VENUS SPRINGS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., f/k/a GMAC Inc.; AMY BOUQUE; KATHLEEN
PATTERSON; YEQUIANG HE, a/k/a Bill He; CYNTHIA DAUTRICH,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00311-MOC-DCK)

Submitted:

July 25, 2012

Decided:

August 30, 2012

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Venus Springs, SPRINGS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Richard S. McAtee, Nicola A. L. Prall,
JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1258

Doc: 28

Filed: 08/30/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
On

appeal,

district

Venus

court’s

grant

Springs
of

(Plaintiff)

summary

judgment

challenges
in

favor

of

the
her

former employer, Ally Financial, Inc. (Defendant), with respect
to her claims alleging Defendant terminated her because of her
race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil
Rights

Act

of

1964,

and

North

Carolina

common

law.

Additionally, Plaintiff challenges the district court’s grant of
summary
claims

judgment
alleging

in

favor

Defendant

of

Defendant

terminated

her

with
in

respect

to

her

retaliation

for

engaging in protected activity in violation of § 1981, Title
VII, and the public policy announced by the North Carolina Equal
Employment

Practices

Act,

N.C.

Gen.

Stat.

§ 143-422.2.

Moreover, Plaintiff challenges the district court’s grant of a
protective

order

in

favor

of

Defendant,

preventing

Plaintiff

from requiring Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) 1 witnesses from being
deposed away from Defendant’s principal place of business in
Detroit, Michigan.

Having carefully reviewed the briefs, the

record, and the relevant law, we conclude that each of these
challenges is without merit and affirm the judgment below on the
reasoning of the district court as stated in its January 30,

1

See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6)(governing
notice of a deposition to an organization).

- 2 -

Appeal: 12-1258

Doc: 28

Filed: 08/30/2012

2012 order. 2

Pg: 3 of 4

Springs v. Ally Financial, Inc., 2012 WL 260661

(W.D.N.C. January 30, 2012) (slip copy).
Finally,
failing

to

Plaintiff

address

argues

her

the

district

claims

alleging

court

by

engaged

Defendant

erred

in

post-employment retaliation against her in violation of Title
VII,

§ 1981,

and

the

public

policy

announced

by

the

North

Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143422.2.

Plaintiff’s argument is without merit because the record

below,

including

submissions

at

establishes

that

post-employment
resolution.

the
the

operative
summary

Plaintiff

retaliation

complaint

judgment
did

claims

not
to

and

stage,
fairly

the

Plaintiff’s
conclusively
present

district

court

any
for

We refuse to permit Plaintiff now to sandbag the

district court in this manner.

2

Although Plaintiff names Amy Bouque, Kathleen Patterson,
Yequiang He, and Cynthia Dautrich as additional appellees,
Plaintiff presents no argument in her opening appellate brief
challenging the district court’s dispositions of her respective
claims against these individuals below. We, therefore, deem any
such challenges abandoned on appeal.
See Wahi v. Charleston
Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009)
(“Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9)(A) requires that
the argument section of an appellant’s opening brief must
contain the ‘appellant's contentions and the reasons for them,
with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on
which the appellant relies.’ Because Wahi has failed to comply
with the specific dictates of Rule 28(a)(9)(A), we conclude that
he has waived his claims . . . .”), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct.
1140 (2010).

- 3 -

Appeal: 12-1258

Doc: 28

Filed: 08/30/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

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 -