David Brandford v. Shannon-Baum Signs, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999804497-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00836-RDB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999895669]. Mailed to: D Brandford. [16-1437]

Appeal: 16-1437

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1437

DAVID BRANDFORD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SHANNON-BAUM SIGNS, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-00836-RDB)

Submitted:

July 21, 2016

Decided:

July 25, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Brandford, Appellant Pro Se.
Patricia L. Payne, PAYNE &
ASSOCIATES, LTD, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1437

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David Brandford appeals from the district court’s judgment
denying

relief

on

Brandford’s

discrimination

and

retaliation

claims, brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12300 (2012); Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West
2012 & Supp. 2015); and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 &
Supp. 2015).

The district court’s judgment was entered in 2012,

and affirmed by this court in 2013.

See Brandford v. Shannon-

Baum Signs, Inc., 519 F. App’x 817 (4th Cir. 2013) (No. 12–
2116).
To

Thus, this appeal is duplicative.
the

extent

Brandford’s

appellate

filings

could

be

construed as a challenge to this court’s 2013 opinion affirming
the district court’s judgment, the time for filing a rehearing
petition

expired

long

ago.

See

Fed.

R.

App.

P.

40(a)(1)

(“Unless the time is shortened or extended by order or local
rule, a petition for panel rehearing may be filed within 14 days
after entry of judgment.”).
mandate

to

avoid

injustice

Moreover, this court may recall its
only

in

exceptional

cases.

See

Alphin v. Henson, 552 F.2d 1033, 1035 (4th Cir. 1977).

“The

sparing use of the power demonstrates it is one of last resort,
to be held in reserve against grave, unforeseen contingencies.”
Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 550 (1998).
2

Brandford’s is

Appeal: 16-1437

not

Doc: 10

an

judgment

Filed: 07/25/2016

“exceptional
is

not

case[]”

subject

to

Pg: 3 of 3

and,

thus,

relitigation

the

district

before

this

court’s
court.

Accordingly, we deny Brandford’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3