Cassandra Harrison-Belk v. Richie Barnes, No. 08-1995 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1995 CASSANDRA HARRISON-BELK; BEVERLY JEAN HARRISON; TANQUONYA MOANEY, in her official capacity as Special Administratrix for the Estate of Laniee Marie Moaney, Plaintiffs Appellees, and CYNTHIA DOLLARD; MARIE MOANEY, Plaintiffs, v. RICHIE D. BARNES, Defendant Appellant, and ROCKHAVEN COMMUNITY CARE HOME, INCORPORATED, Defendant. 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) Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. March 25, 2009 Richie D. Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Lovic Alston Brooks, III, BROOKS LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Richie D. Barnes appeals the district court s order awarding attorneys fees of $22,424, and costs of $1,494.30, to Appellees Cassandra Tanquonya Moaney, Harrison-Belk, acting as Beverly Special Jean Harrison, Administratrix for and 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 See Hitachi Credit in awarding attorneys fees to Appellees. 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, HarrisonBelk v. Barnes, No. 3:07-cv-00054-CMC (D.S.C. July 31, 2008), and deny as judgment. legal before moot motion to stay the execution of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the Barnes s court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.