UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1258
VENUS SPRINGS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., f/k/a GMAC Inc.; AMY BOUQUE; KATHLEEN
PATTERSON; YEQUIANG HE, a/k/a Bill He; CYNTHIA DAUTRICH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00311-MOC-DCK)
Submitted: July 25, 2012 Decided: August 30, 2012
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Venus Springs, SPRINGS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Richard S. McAtee, Nicola A. L. Prall,
JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
On appeal, Venus Springs (Plaintiff) challenges the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of her
former employer, Ally Financial, Inc. (Defendant), with respect
to her claims alleging Defendant terminated her because of her
race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and North Carolina common law.
Additionally, Plaintiff challenges the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Defendant with respect to her
claims alleging Defendant terminated her in retaliation for
engaging in protected activity in violation of § 1981, Title
VII, and the public policy announced by the North Carolina Equal
Employment Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.2.
Moreover, Plaintiff challenges the district court’s grant of a
protective order in favor of Defendant, preventing Plaintiff
from requiring Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) 1 witnesses from being
deposed away from Defendant’s principal place of business in
Detroit, Michigan. Having carefully reviewed the briefs, the
record, and the relevant law, we conclude that each of these
challenges is without merit and affirm the judgment below on the
reasoning of the district court as stated in its January 30,
1
See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6)(governing
notice of a deposition to an organization).
- 2 -
2012 order. 2 Springs v. Ally Financial, Inc., 2012 WL 260661
(W.D.N.C. January 30, 2012) (slip copy).
Finally, Plaintiff argues the district court erred by
failing to address her claims alleging Defendant engaged in
post-employment retaliation against her in violation of Title
VII, § 1981, and the public policy announced by the North
Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-
422.2. Plaintiff’s argument is without merit because the record
below, including the operative complaint and Plaintiff’s
submissions at the summary judgment stage, conclusively
establishes that Plaintiff did not fairly present any
post-employment retaliation claims to the district court for
resolution. We refuse to permit Plaintiff now to sandbag the
district court in this manner.
2
Although Plaintiff names Amy Bouque, Kathleen Patterson,
Yequiang He, and Cynthia Dautrich as additional appellees,
Plaintiff presents no argument in her opening appellate brief
challenging the district court’s dispositions of her respective
claims against these individuals below. We, therefore, deem any
such challenges abandoned on appeal. See Wahi v. Charleston
Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009)
(“Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9)(A) requires that
the argument section of an appellant’s opening brief must
contain the ‘appellant's contentions and the reasons for them,
with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on
which the appellant relies.’ Because Wahi has failed to comply
with the specific dictates of Rule 28(a)(9)(A), we conclude that
he has waived his claims . . . .”), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct.
1140 (2010).
- 3 -
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
- 4 -