Constantiny v. Supershuttle International Corp.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 26, 2009
Docket08-1348
StatusUnpublished

This text of Constantiny v. Supershuttle International Corp. (Constantiny v. Supershuttle International Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Constantiny v. Supershuttle International Corp., (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1348

ARQUIMEDES CONSTANTINY; CARLOS CERDA; MIGUEL CERDA; ESTATE OF JAMES O. GRAY; WILLIAM L. BROWN; GREGORY L. FREEMAN; JOHN H. MOSLEY; JOHN L. POLHILL; ERNEST RHYMER; EVERRET TURNER; SEAN WITHERSPOON; ERMIAS YIBASS; MIKE YOHANES; SAMUEL AJAYI; CORWYN HATTER; ADUMANISA MALAE; PIERRE SIANKAM; WILLIAM SPATES; ALPHONSE KOFFI,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

and

MARIANNE BAZIRUWIHA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUPERSHUTTLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; WASHINGTON SHUTTLE, INCORPORATED; DOUG CLARKE, General Manager-Supershuttle, Washington, D.C., Incorporated; KAVARD MOORE, JR.; ALVIN BAILEY, Director of Operations Super Shuttle, Washington, DC; SUPER SHUTTLE, WASHINGTON DC; PAUL ELLICOT, General Manager, Super Shuttle, BWI,

Defendants – Appellees.

No. 08-1349

ESTATE OF JAMES O. GRAY,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

and MARIANNE BAZIRUWIHA; EVERRET TURNER; ALPHONSE KOFFI; ARQUIMEDES CONSTANTINY; MIGUEL CERDA; CARLOS CERDA; GREGORY L. FREEMAN; WILLIAM SPATES; JOHN H. MOSLEY; CORWYN HATTER; JOHN L. POLHILL; SEAN WITHERSPOON; PIERRE SIANKAM; ERMIAS YIBASS; MIKE YOHANES; SAMUEL AJAYI; WILLIAM L. BROWN; ERNEST RHYMER; ADUMANISA MALAE,

Plaintiffs,

SUPERSHUTTLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; WASHINGTON SHUTTLE, INCORPORATED; DOUG CLARKE, General Manager-Supershuttle, Washington, D.C., Incorporated; KAVARD MOORE, JR.; ALVIN BAILEY, Director of Operations Super Shuttle, Washington DC; SUPER SHUTTLE, WASHINGTON DC; PAUL ELLICOT, General Manager, Super Shuttle, BWI,

No. 08-1374

EVERRET TURNER; ALPHONSE KOFFI; ARQUIMEDES CONSTANTINY; MIGUEL CERDA; CARLOS CERDA; JAMES O. GRAY; GREGORY L. FREEMAN; WILLIAM SPATES; JOHN H. MOSLEY; CORWYN HATTER; JOHN L. POLHILL; SEAN WITHERSPOON; PIERRE SIANKAM; ERMIAS YIBASS; MIKE YOHANES; SAMUEL AJAYI; WILLIAM L. BROWN; ERNEST RHYMER; ADUMANISA MALAE,

SUPERSHUTTLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; WASHINGTON SHUTTLE, INCORPORATED; DOUG CLARKE, General Manager-Supershuttle, Washington, D.C., Incorporated; KAVARD MOORE, JR.; ALVIN BAILEY, Director of Operations Super Shuttle, Washington,

2 DC; SUPER SHUTTLE, WASHINGTON DC; PAUL ELLICOT, General Manager, Super Shuttle, BWI,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cv-01146-JCC-BRP)

Submitted: February 24, 2009 Decided: March 26, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Uduak James Ubom, Washington, D.C., for Appellants in Nos. 08- 1348 and 08-1349. Marianne Baziruwiha, Appellant Pro Se in No. 08-1374. Ralph Edward Kipp, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3 PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, * Plaintiffs appeal the

district court’s order granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b) motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and dismissing

their race, color, and national origin discrimination claims

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981

(2000), as well as several state law contract and tort causes of

action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See

Baziruwiha v. Supershuttle Int’l Corp., No. 1:05-cv-01146-JCC-

BRP (E.D. Va. Feb. 26, 2008). 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

* Although the appeals have been separately briefed and considered, the court consolidates them for purpose of issuing a consolidated opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Constantiny v. Supershuttle International Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/constantiny-v-supershuttle-international-corp-ca4-2009.