NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a1261n.06 No. 12-3312 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T CAROL BY RD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. TI ME WARNER C AB L E I NC.; MATTHEW TOF T; MARI A B AI L EY; SCOTT MATTHEWS; CAROL WAL KER; PATTY FI GG; MONI QUE COL BERT, Def endants-A

ppellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL

FROM THE U

NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN D I STRI CT OF OHI O

Be fore : MERRI TT, MARTI N, and GI L MAN, Circuit J udg es.

PER CURI AM. Carol By rd, a pro se Ohio resident, appea ls a district court order enfor cing the settlement ag ree ment betwee n her a nd the def

endants. I n October 2009, By

rd, who was employ ed by Time Warner Cable fo r t wenty -three y ear s, sued the defe n dants (Time Warner Cable and six Time Warner employ ees) afte r her employ ment

was terminated i n No vember 2007. She alleg ed rac e and disability discrimination, along with reta liation. By

rd, who was repr esente d by Daniel Donne llon for the limited purpose of se ttlement neg otiation, appea

red b ef o re a mag istrate judge who held a settlement confe renc e. The parties

rea ched an oral ag ree ment and the mag istrate judge revie wed the ag ree ment with By rd to ensure that By rd consente d to its terms. The next day , the di s t ri ct co u rt enter ed an order dismiss ing By rd’s claims with prejudice and re taining jur isdiction to enforce the settlement. The ag ree ment was memorialized in writing , but By rd did not sign it. I n stead, she filed a

mo t i o n reque sting that the district court revie w the oral ag ree ment, indicating that she wanted toNo. 12-3312 - 2 - revoke the settlement ag ree ment. At a status confe re nce with the mag istrate judge , By rd told Donnellon that she wanted the mutual r elea se portion of the a g ree ment revised to limit the relea se to Time Warner and Time Warner employ ees, and not to extend to “ag ents, independe nt contra ctors,

or persons acting in a repr esentative capa city .” Time Warner’ s attorney ref used to acc ept the chang e, howeve r, and the defe ndants filed a motion to enfor ce the oral settlement a g ree ment. The district court held a hear ing on Fe bruar y 1, 2012. The mag istrate judge and Donnellon both testified that By

rd under stood and consente d to the overa ll terms of the ag ree ment. By rd did not testify

. The district court conclude d that the parties had rea ched an ag ree ment at the settlement confere n ce , fi n ding that the ag ree ment as written included the adjustment to the mutual rele ase reque sted by By

rd. D. Ct. Op. at 7. The district court reje cted By rd’s arg uments that the ag ree ment should not be enfor ced and there fore g rante d the defe ndants’ motion to enfor ce the ag ree ment. After the district court de nied her motion for rec onsideration, B y rd filed a timely notice of a

ppeal. By rd does not challeng e the district court’s deter mination that she enter ed into an ag ree ment with the defen d an t s . Thus, she has waived her rig ht to have this issue revie wed on appea l. See Marks v . Newcourt Credit Grp., Inc. , 342 F.3d 444, 462 ( 6th Cir. 2003). We revie w the district court’s order enfor cing a settlement ag ree ment for an abuse of discretion. RE/MAX Int’l, Inc. v. Realt y One, Inc. , 271 F.3d 633, 645 (6th Cir. 2001). “I t is well established that courts reta in the inhere nt power to enfor ce ag ree ments enter ed into in settlement of litigation pending befor e them.” Brock v. Scheune r Corp. , 841 F.2d 151, 154 (6th Cir. 1 9 8 8 ) (quoting Aro Corp. v. Allied W itan Co. , 531 F.2d 1368, 1371 ( 6th Cir. 1976)). By rd argues that the district court abused its discretion in enfor cing the settlement ag ree ment beca use Donnellon coer ced and fra udulently induced her into enter ing the ag ree ment by advising her that if the defe ndants filed a motion for summary judgme nt, the n the mag istrate judge “would lean towards g ranting them their j udg ment.” Contrary to By rd’s assertion, Donnellon’s advice did not constitute co er cion beca

use Donnellon mere ly advised By rd reg arding the risk that ever y litigantNo. 12-3312 - 3 - fac es when neg otiating a settlement. See Blodgett v. Blodgett , 551 N.E.2d 1249, 1252 (Ohio 1990). L ikewise, By

rd did not establish that the settlement ag ree ment was procur ed by fra ud beca use Donnellon g ave his opinion on a future event, which is insuff icient to e stablish fraud. See Micrel, Inc. v . TRW

, Inc. , 486 F.3d 866, 874 ( 6th Cir. 2007). By rd further cites Donnellon’s advice in arguing that the mag istrate judge violated the Ohio C o d e o f J udicial Conduct by “pre maturely disclosing clea rly confide ntial information about the actua l or probable decision in a pending case .” This argument is without merit beca use the district court found that Donnellon never spoke to the mag istrate j u d ge re gar d i ng the dispositi on of a potential summa ry judgme nt motion and By rd fails to demonstrate that this finding is clea rly

err oneous. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in enfor cing the settlement ag ree ment. On appea l, By

rd raises alleg ed conflicts of interest betwee n the mag istrate judge and Donnellon, and betwee n the district c o u r t ju d g e and Donnellon’s associate

. By rd waived these issues

on appea l by failing to raise the issues befor e the district court. See Enertec h Elec., Inc. v. Mahoning Cnty. Comm’rs , 85 F.3d 257, 261 ( 6th Cir. 1996). The district cour

t’s order is affirme d.