David Brandford v. Shannon-Baum Signs, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

David Brandford v. Shannon-Baum Signs, Inc.

667 F. App'x 401

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 25, 2016

Docket16-1437

StatusUnpublished

This text of 667 F. App'x 401 (David Brandford v. Shannon-Baum Signs, Inc.) 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

David Brandford v. Shannon-Baum Signs, Inc., 667 F. App'x 401 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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 Fed.Appx. 817 (4th Cir. 2013). Thus, this appeal is duplicative.

To 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.”).'Moreover, this court may recall its mandate to avoid injustice only in exceptional eases. 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, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998). Brandford’s is not an “exceptional case[]” and, thus, the district court’s judgment is not subject to relitigation before this court. Accordingly, we deny Brandford’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument *402 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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 Fed.Appx. 817 (4th Cir. 2013). Thus, this appeal is duplicative.

To 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.”).'Moreover, this court may recall its mandate to avoid injustice only in exceptional eases. 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, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998). Brandford’s is not an “exceptional case[]” and, thus, the district court’s judgment is not subject to relitigation before this court. Accordingly, we deny Brandford’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument *402 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-brandford-v-shannon-baum-signs-inc-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack