UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1258

VENUS SPRINGS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., f/k/a GMAC Inc.; AMY BOUQUE; KATHLEEN 

PATTERSON; YEQUIANG HE, a/k/a Bill He; CYNTHIA DAUTRICH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:10-cv-00311-MOC-DCK)

Submitted: July 25, 2012 Decided: August 30, 2012

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Venus Springs, SPRINGS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Richard S. McAtee, Nicola A. L. Prall, 

JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

On appeal, Venus Springs (Plaintiff) challenges the 

district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of her 

former employer, Ally Financial, Inc. (Defendant), with respect 

to her claims alleging Defendant terminated her because of her 

race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, and North Carolina common law. 

Additionally, Plaintiff challenges the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment in favor of Defendant with respect to her 

claims alleging Defendant terminated her in retaliation for 

engaging in protected activity in violation of § 1981, Title 

VII, and the public policy announced by the North Carolina Equal 

Employment Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.2. 

Moreover, Plaintiff challenges the district court’s grant of a 

protective order in favor of Defendant, preventing Plaintiff 

from requiring Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6)1 witnesses from being 

deposed away from Defendant’s principal place of business in 

Detroit, Michigan. Having carefully reviewed the briefs, the 

record, and the relevant law, we conclude that each of these 

challenges is without merit and affirm the judgment below on the 

reasoning of the district court as stated in its January 30, 

 1 See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6)(governing 

notice of a deposition to an organization).
- 3 -

2012 order.2 Springs v. Ally Financial, Inc., 2012 WL 260661 

(W.D.N.C. January 30, 2012) (slip copy).

Finally, Plaintiff argues the district court erred by 

failing to address her claims alleging Defendant engaged in 

post-employment retaliation against her in violation of Title 

VII, § 1981, and the public policy announced by the North 

Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-

422.2. Plaintiff’s argument is without merit because the record 

below, including the operative complaint and Plaintiff’s 

submissions at the summary judgment stage, conclusively 

establishes that Plaintiff did not fairly present any 

post-employment retaliation claims to the district court for 

resolution. We refuse to permit Plaintiff now to sandbag the 

district court in this manner. 

 2 Although Plaintiff names Amy Bouque, Kathleen Patterson, 

Yequiang He, and Cynthia Dautrich as additional appellees, 

Plaintiff presents no argument in her opening appellate brief 

challenging the district court’s dispositions of her respective 

claims against these individuals below. We, therefore, deem any 

such challenges abandoned on appeal. See Wahi v. Charleston 

Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009) 

(“Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9)(A) requires that 

the argument section of an appellant’s opening brief must 

contain the ‘appellant's contentions and the reasons for them, 

with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on 

which the appellant relies.’ Because Wahi has failed to comply 

with the specific dictates of Rule 28(a)(9)(A), we conclude that 

he has waived his claims . . . .”), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 

1140 (2010).
- 4 -

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