Mayberry v. Battles

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2191

RORY MAYBERRY, United States ex rel.; ROBERT ISAKSON, United States ex rel.,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Party-in-Interest,

v.

MICHAEL BATTLES; SECURITY VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, LIMITED; DANUBIA GLOBAL, INCORPORATED; RICHARD LEVINSON; AMY CLARK; WINDMILL INTERNATIONAL, LIMITED; HANSFORD T. JOHNSON; DOUGLAS COMBS; SCOTT CUSTER,

Defendants – Appellees,

CUSTER BATTLES, LLC,

Debtor – Appellee,

EMERGENT BUSINESS SERVICES; TARHEEL TRAINING, LLC; ROB ROY TRUMBLE; SALLYPORT GLOBAL HOLDING, LLC; JOSEPH MORRIS; JOHN DEBLASIO,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00364-LO-TCB) Submitted: April 27, 2010 Decided: May 21, 2010

Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Aronoff Kubli, KUBLI & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Vienna, Virginia, for Appellants. Craig Crandall Reilly, Alexandria, Virginia; Peter Barton Hutt, II, Duncan Stevens, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Eugene Andrew Burcher, WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICH & WALSH, PC, Prince William, Virginia; Scott Custer, Bradenton, Florida, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Rory Mayberry and Robert Isakson appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge, granting the motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 sanctions,

dismissing this action with prejudice, and awarding reasonable

expenses and fees to Defendants. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court in its opinion from the

bench. Mayberry v. Battles, No. 1:06-cv-00364-LO-TCB (E.D. Va.

Oct. 10, 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