United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Company

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1011

UNITED STATES ex rel. BENJAMIN CARTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HALLIBURTON CO; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC.; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL, INC.; KBR, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. (S. Ct. No. 12-1497)

Submitted: June 29, 2015 Decided: July 14, 2015

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam order.

ARGUED: William Clifton Holmes, DUNLAP, GRUBB & WEAVER, PC, Leesburg, Virginia, for Appellant. John Martin Faust, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN M. FAUST, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Thomas M. Dunlap, David Ludwig, DUNLAP, GRUBB & WEAVER, PC, Leesburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Craig D. Margolis, Tirzah S. Lollar, Kathryn B. Codd, VINSON & ELKINS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ORDER

PER CURIAM:

This case returns to us on remand after the Supreme Court

granted Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.’s petition for

certiorari, and reversed in part and affirmed in part our

decision in United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., 710

F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2013). The only issue left for resolution is

whether Carter timely filed his complaint under the principle of

equitable tolling. Appellees–Defendants have filed a motion for

summary affirmance under Fourth Circuit Local Rule 27(f).

Because Carter raised the issue of equitable tolling for the

first time in a motion to file a surreply and has not appealed

the district court’s denial of that motion, we find that the

issue is not properly before us and that equitable tolling is

thus unavailable. See ACLU v. Holder, 673 F.3d 245, 252 n.5

(4th Cir. 2011). Therefore, we grant Appellees–Defendants’

motion for summary affirmance and affirm the district court’s

judgment.

AFFIRMED