Metro MacHine Corp. v. Small Business Administration , 102 F. App'x 352 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1253
METRO MACHINE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION; MICHAEL P.
MCHALE, In his official capacity as Associate
Administrator of HUBZone Program,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CA-03-838)
Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: July 14, 2004
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas G. Johnson, Jr., Gary A. Bryant, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellant. Beverley E. Hazlewood, OFFICE OF GENERAL
COUNSEL, Washington, D.C.; Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney,
Michael A. Rhine, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Metro Machine Corporation (“Metro”) appeals the district
court’s order granting the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”)
motion for summary judgment and denying Metro’s motion for summary
judgment on Metro’s complaint that challenged the SBA’s
decertification of Metro under the Historically Underutilized
Business Zone program. Metro has moved for expedited consideration
of this appeal and waived oral argument. We grant Metro’s motion
to expedite and affirm the judgment of the district court.
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. See
Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th
Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is proper when there are no material
facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The parties agreed before the district
court and on appeal that there are no material facts in dispute.
We have considered the thorough opinion of the district court, the
briefs of the parties, and the record. Our review leaves us
convinced that the district court correctly analyzed the cross
motions for summary judgment and concluded that the SBA’s actions
were neither arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to law.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Metro Mach. Corp. v. Small Bus. Admin., 305 F. Supp.2d 614 (E.D.
Va. 2004).
AFFIRMED
- 2 -