eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 1999-11

Allen-Sesker v. Bell Atlantic Global ( 1999 )


Menu:
 
  • UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIA M. ALLEN-SESKER;
JACQUELINE COLEMAN; CHARMAINE
CRAWFORD-HOLLY; BELINDA DICKENS-
LONG; TYO HODGINS; BARBARA
LAMBRIGHT; VARNETTA MOSES;
GLORIA REAL; ANDRI STEWART;
GERALDINE STANCIL; CAROL D.
WILLIS; CASSANDRA A. GRIER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
No. 99-1536
BELL ATLANTIC GLOBAL WIRELESS,
INCORPORATED, t/a Chesapeake
Directory Sales Company; GTEX
CORPORATION; BARRY VAN RY,
Individually and as President-CEO;
STANLEY HAAS; JAMES R. WALLIS,
Individually and as Vice President-
Human Resources; E. JOSEPH
CROSNEY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(CA-97-2820-PJM)
Submitted: September 30, 1999
Decided: November 2, 1999
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
George Hermina, John Hermina, HERMINA LAW GROUP, Laurel,
Maryland, for Appellants. Harry T. Jones, Jr., William P. Flanagan,
HOGAN & HARTSON, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
yhdddy
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
The Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying their
motion for a continuance pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) and dis-
missing their civil action alleging racial discrimination and retaliation
in employment filed under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994) and
    42 U.S.C. § 1981
     (1994). The Appellants also assign error to the district court's
order affirming the magistrate judge's denial of three discovery-
related motions and the court's refusal to issue preliminary injunctive
relief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In light of the Appellants' failure to describe with any specificity
the additional discovery required, we find that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 56(f) motion. See Nguyen
v. CNA Corp.,
    44 F.3d 234
    , 242 (4th Cir. 1995). Neither did the court
abuse its nearly "unfettered" discretion in denying Appellants'
untimely discovery motions. Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg,
    81 F.3d 416
    , 426 (4th Cir. 1996). To the extent that it may have been error
to deny the Appellants' motion to determine the sufficiency of the
Appellees' untimely response to the Appellants' request for admis-
sions, we find that the error was harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. See
2
Beatty v. United States,
    983 F.2d 908
    , 909 (8th Cir. 1993); Gutting
v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.,
    710 F.2d 1309
    , 1313 (8th Cir. 1983).
Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in declining to award preliminary injunctive relief to the Appellants.
See Planned Parenthood v. Camblos,
    155 F.3d 352
    , 359 (4th Cir.
1998) (en banc), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,
    67 U.S.L.W. 3364
     (U.S.
Feb. 22, 1999) (No. 98-834).
The district court's orders are affirmed. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3