# Molli Cabrera v. Donta Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 2, 2013

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/866682

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 2, 2013
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/866682

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2435

MOLLI TRISH CABRERA; DARLENE ELIZABETH CARTER,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

DONTA CORNELIUS BROWN; WESTERN EXPRESS, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate
Judge. (1:12-cv-00041-SAG)

Submitted: April 29, 2013 Decided: May 2, 2013

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Solomon M. Sterenberg, STEIN SPERLING BENNETT DEJONG DRISCOLL,
PC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellants. Charles B. Peoples,
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Molli Trish Cabrera and Darlene Elizabeth Carter

(“Appellants”) appeal the magistrate judge’s sanctions order and

the order granting summary judgment in favor of Donta Cornelius

Brown and Western Express, Incorporated in Appellants’ civil

action. ∗ We have reviewed the parties briefs and the joint

appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Cabrera v.

Brown, No. 1:12-cv-00041-SAG (D. Md. Aug. 28 & Sept. 17, 2012).

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.

AFFIRMED

∗
The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by
the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/866682. Public record. Not legal advice.