Grace J. Hadeed; Joan Winter v. Abraham, 103 F. App. 706 4th Cir. June 30, 2004 unpublished , precluded the district…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1343
GRACE J. HADEED; JOAN WINTER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
THOMAS ABRAHAM; GLENDA ABRAHAM,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-695-2)
Submitted: October 31, 2005 Decided: January 12, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John B. Mann, LEVIT & MANN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellants. L. Steven Emmert, SYKES, BOURDON, AHERN & LEVY, P.C.,
Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Grace J. Hadeed and Joan Winter appeal from the district
court’s order granting Thomas and Glenda Abraham’s motion for
additional fees and costs under the fee-shifting provisions of the
Fair Housing Act, see 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(2) (2000). Hadeed and
Winter assert that our denial of sanctions under Rule 38 of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure in their prior appeal, see
Hadeed v. Abraham, 103 F. App. 706 (4th Cir. June 30, 2004)
(unpublished), precluded the district court from awarding
additional fees and costs associated with the Abrahams’ defense of
that appeal. Because Hadeed and Winter raise that issue for the
first time on appeal, we decline to address it. See Brickwood
Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng’g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385, 390 (4th
Cir. 2004) (en banc) (stating general rule that appellate court
generally does not consider issues raised for first time on appeal
and noting exception not applicable here). Moreover, Hadeed and
Winter do not challenge the grounds on which the district court
relied to impose additional attorney’s fees and costs. See United
States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004) (“It is
a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument
section of the opening brief are abandoned.”). Thus, they have
waived appellate review of the court’s order.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and
deny the Abrahams’ motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant the

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
Abrahams’ motion for Rule 38 sanctions and order Hadeed and Winter
to pay $6525 in attorney’s fees and $562.40 in costs. Finally, we
grant the Abrahams’ motion to strike from the joint appendix Hadeed
and Winter’s motion to dismiss the Abrahams’ motion for additional
fees and costs on the ground that it was not filed in the district
court. 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

-- 3 of 3 --