UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2233

SCIENTIFIC AND COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

TESSADA ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:11-cv-01278-CMH-JFA)

Submitted: September 9, 2013 Decided: October 16, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kenneth A. Martin, THE MARTIN LAW FIRM, PLLC, McLean, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Jonathan D. Frieden, Leigh M. Winstead, ODIN, 

FELDMAN & PITTLEMAN, P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Scientific and Commercial Systems Corporation (“SCSC”) 

appeals the district court’s grant of Tessada Associates, Inc.’s 

motion for summary judgment.* We affirm.

In April 2009, the federal government awarded Tessada a 

contract to provide logistical services to the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Ames Research Center. In 

June 2009, Tessada entered into a subcontract with SCSC to 

facilitate work on the government contract. The subcontract 

consisted of a base period of performance from May 1, 2009, 

through September 30, 2009, and twenty-two exercisable option 

periods. Each option extended the period of performance by one 

month. The parties modified the contract sixteen times, 

exercising nineteen of the option periods. The final 

modification extended the period of performance through November 

30, 2011. On November 14, 2011, Tessada notified SCSC that it 

would not extend the subcontract beyond November 30, 2011. 

On November 22, 2011, SCSC filed a complaint for breach of 

contract against Tessada in federal court, alleging that 

 * SCSC also appeals the magistrate judge’s grant of 

Tessada’s motion to strike SCSC’s designation of Ronald Walker 

as a rebuttal expert witness. Because SCSC failed to object to 

this ruling within fourteen days as required by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 72(a), SCSC has waived review of this issue. See

Solis v. Malkani, 638 F.3d 269, 274 (4th Cir. 2011).
3

Tessada’s termination breached the subcontract because the 

parties intended and agreed that Tessada would retain SCSC as 

the subcontractor for as long as the government retained Tessada 

as the prime contractor. The parties filed cross-motions for 

summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment 

for Tessada, finding that the modified subcontract unambiguously 

stated that the period of performance was to end on November 30, 

2011. Scientific & Commercial Sys. Corp. v. Tessada Assocs., 

Inc., No. 1:11-cv-1278, 2012 WL 3866497, at *2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 

30, 2012). Because the parties did not execute an additional

modification to extend the term, the district court held that 

the subcontract expired on November 30, 2011, and that Tessada 

had no legal obligation to continue a contractual relationship 

with SCSC. Id.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de 

novo. Hardwick ex rel. Hardwick v. Heyward, 711 F.3d 426, 433 

(4th Cir. 2013). In conducting our review, we view all evidence 

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. We do 

not weigh the evidence, but rather we only determine whether 

there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id.

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the district 

court’s opinion, and the applicable law, we affirm substantially 

on the reasoning of the district court’s order. See Scientific & 

Commercial Sys. Corp., 2012 WL 3866497. We dispense with oral 
4

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before us and oral argument would not 

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED