Rory Mayberry v. Michael Battles, No. 08-2191 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2191 RORY MAYBERRY, United United States ex rel., States ex rel.; ROBERT ISAKSON, Plaintiffs Appellants, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Party-in-Interest, v. MICHAEL BATTLES; SECURITY VENTURES INTERNATIONAL, LIMITED; DANUBIA GLOBAL, INCORPORATED; RICHARD LEVINSON; AMY CLARK; WINDMILL INTERNATIONAL, LIMITED; HANSFORD T. JOHNSON; DOUGLAS COMBS; SCOTT CUSTER, Defendants Appellees, CUSTER BATTLES, LLC, Debtor Appellee, and EMERGENT BUSINESS SERVICES; TARHEEL TRAINING, LLC; ROB ROY TRUMBLE; SALLYPORT GLOBAL HOLDING, LLC; JOSEPH MORRIS; JOHN DEBLASIO, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O Grady, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00364-LO-TCB) Submitted: April 27, 2010 Decided: May 21, 2010 Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victor Aronoff Kubli, KUBLI & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Vienna, Virginia, for Appellants. Craig Crandall Reilly, Alexandria, Virginia; Peter Barton Hutt, II, Duncan Stevens, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Eugene Andrew Burcher, WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICH & WALSH, PC, Prince William, Virginia; Scott Custer, Bradenton, Florida, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Rory Mayberry and Robert Isakson appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting the motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 sanctions, dismissing this action with prejudice, and awarding reasonable expenses and fees to Defendants. and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its opinion from the bench. Mayberry v. Battles, No. 1:06-cv-00364-LO-TCB (E.D. Va. Oct. 10, 2008). facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the 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.