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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 12-2435 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/02/2013 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2435 MOLLI TRISH CABRERA; DARLENE ELIZABETH CARTER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. DONTA CORNELIUS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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?