Rajender Salgam v. Advanced Software Systems, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 11, 2023
• Docket: 22-1794
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1794 Doc: 32 Filed: 08/11/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1794

RAJENDER K. SALGAM

Plaintiff – Appellant

and

MUNUSAMY KANDASAMY

Plaintiff

v.

ADVANCED SOFTWARE SYSTEMS, INC.

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-00029-AJT-TCB)

Submitted: April 28, 2023 Decided: August 11, 2023

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: John B. Flood, BERLIKLAW, LLC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy M. McConville, PRAEMIA LAW, PLLC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1794 Doc: 32 Filed: 08/11/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Rajender K. Salgam was sanctioned after committing fraud upon the district court

by falsifying evidence. The district court dismissed Salgam’s claims with prejudice and

awarded Advanced Software System attorney’s fees and costs. Salgam appeals, claiming

that the district court abused its discretion in several respects. Finding no reversible error,

we affirm.

To begin, Salgam claims that the district court failed to consider whether lesser

sanctions would be appropriate before dismissing his claims with prejudice. But Salgam

has waived this argument by failing to ask the district court to consider sanctions short of

dismissal. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Absent exceptional

circumstances, we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” (cleaned up)

(quoting Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs, LLC, 560 F.3d 235, 242 (4th Cir. 2009))). And

even if we were to consider Salgam’s argument, we would reject it. Salgam misreads the

district court’s order. The district court held that dismissal with prejudice, standing alone,

was an insufficient sanction for Salgam’s fraud because he had previously stipulated to

dismissal with prejudice of his claims. In doing so, the district court necessarily held that

imposing only a sanction short of dismissal with prejudice would be insufficient. Cf.

United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 461 (4th Cir. 1993) (explaining that

dismissal with prejudice is “the most severe sanction” available).

Next, Salgam claims that the district court erred by failing to rule on his objections

to a magistrate judge’s recommendation before sanctioning him. But a district court need

not explicitly rule upon a party’s objections, so long as it considered and rejected them.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1794 Doc: 32 Filed: 08/11/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

See Wall v. Rasnick, 42 F.4th 214, 220 (4th Cir. 2022). And even accepting Salgam’s

premise that the district court failed to rule upon his objections, his argument still fails.

Proceedings continued in the district court for nearly two years following the court’s award

of sanctions. During this time, Salgam never raised his argument that the district court

failed to rule upon his objections. Consequently, he has not preserved it for appeal.

Malbon v. Penn. Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 636 F.2d 936, 940–41 (4th Cir. 1980).

Lastly, Salgam contends the district court abused its discretion in calculating the

amount of fees and costs awarded by failing to consider the economic impact of the

dismissal of Salgam’s claims with prejudice. But we will reverse a district court’s award

of attorney’s fees only if it is clearly wrong or based upon an error of law. McAfee v.

Bozcar, 738 F.3d 81, 88 (4th Cir. 2013). The district court’s award is neither.

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. The district court’s orders are

AFFIRMED.