Michael Ford v. James Mansfield, No. 10-1254 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1254 MICHAEL FORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES MANSFIELD, Esq., Defendant Appellee, and ZALCO REALTY, INCORPORATED; MDV MAINTENANCE, INCORPORATED; HORIZON HOUSE CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS; DAVID FAISON; ERIC MUCKLOW; VIRGINIA A. SMITH, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O Grady, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01318-LO-TRJ) Submitted: December 20, 2010 Decided: January 12, 2011 Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lynne Bernabei, Alan R. Kabat, Andrea Loveless, Peter M. Whelan, BERNABEI & WACHTEL, PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Michael L. Foreman, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, University Park, Pennsylvania; Sarah Crawford, LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. David D. Hudgins, Robert E. Draim, Reese A. Pearson, HUDGINS LAW FIRM, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael Ford appeals the district court s order granting James Mansfield s summary judgment motion on Ford s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006) claims alleging racial discrimination and harassment, claim for and granting emotional Mansfield s distress damages. record and find no reversible error. district court s order. * motion We to have strike Ford s reviewed Accordingly, we affirm the Ford v. Mansfield, No. 1:08-cv-01318- LO-TRJ (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 1, 2010; entered Feb. 2, 2010). dispense with oral the argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Even assuming, arguendo, that the district court incorrectly analyzed Ford s § 1981 discrimination claim against Mansfield as a wrongful termination claim rather than an interference with contractual relations claim, given the paucity of direct or circumstantial evidence that Mansfield s actions were taken because of Ford s race, we affirm the district court s decision to grant Mansfield summary judgment. See Suter v. United States, 441 F.3d 306, 310 (4th Cir. 2006) (reiterating that the court may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record). 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.