Molli Cabrera v. Donta Brown
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00041-SAG .Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999100168]. [12-2435]
Appeal: 12-2435
Doc: 20
Filed: 05/02/2013
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2435
MOLLI TRISH CABRERA; DARLENE ELIZABETH CARTER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
DONTA CORNELIUS BROWN; WESTERN EXPRESS, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate
Judge. (1:12-cv-00041-SAG)
Submitted:
April 29, 2013
Decided:
May 2, 2013
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Solomon M. Sterenberg, STEIN SPERLING BENNETT DEJONG DRISCOLL,
PC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellants.
Charles B. Peoples,
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-2435
Doc: 20
Filed: 05/02/2013
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Molli
Trish
Cabrera
and
Darlene
Elizabeth
Carter
(“Appellants”) appeal the magistrate judge’s sanctions order and
the order granting summary judgment in favor of Donta Cornelius
Brown
and
action. ∗
Western
Express,
Incorporated
in
Appellants’
civil
We have reviewed the parties briefs and the joint
appendix and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge.
Cabrera v.
Brown, No. 1:12-cv-00041-SAG (D. Md. Aug. 28 & Sept. 17, 2012).
We
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
∗
The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by
the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?