Summary
reviewing an attorney's fees motion under the twelve-factor test even when a pro se defendant's opposition simply stated plaintiff failed to meet the requirements but "provide[d] no discussion or elaboration as to why he believe[d] this is so"
Summary of this case from Guerra v. TeixeiraOpinion
No. 08-1995.
Submitted: February 20, 2009.
Decided: March 25, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00054-CMC).
Richie D. Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Lovic Alston Brooks, III, Brooks Law Firm, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Richie D. Barnes appeals the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees of $22,424, and costs of $1,494.30, to Appellees Cassandra Harrison-Belk, Beverly Jean Harrison, and Tanquonya Moaney, acting as Special Administratrix for the Estate of Laniee Marie Moaney, resulting from their suit for payment of overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees to Appellees. See Hitachi Credit America Corp. v. Signet Bank, 166 F.3d 614, 631 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting that a district court's decision to award attorneys' fees is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, Harrison-Belk v. Barnes, No. 3:07-cv-00054-CMC, 2008 WL 2952442 (D.S.C. July 31, 2008), and deny as moot Barnes's motion to stay the execution of judgment. 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.