UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No s . 13

- 3988 and 13

- 4092

_____________

SIXTH ANGEL SHEPHERD RESCUE, INC;

TERRY ELIZABETH SILVA

v.

GEORGE BENGAL; NICOLE WILSON; PENNSYLVANIA SPCA

Sixth Angel Shepherd Rescue, Inc.,

Appellant in No. 13

- 3988

George Bengal, Nicole Wilson, and Pennsylvania SPCA

Appellants in No. 13

- 4092

_____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

District Court No. 2

- 10

- cv

- 01733

District Judge: The Honorable Berle M. Schiller

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

October 9 , 2015

Before: FUENTES, S MITH

, and BARRY

, Circuit Judges

____________________

JUDGMENT ORDER

____________________

This cause came on to be con sidered on the record from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted on October 9, 2015.2

The cross

- appeals in this civil rights action challenge the District Court’s resolution of a

motion for attorney fee s and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 198 8

. George Bengal, Nicole

Wilson, and the Pennsylvania SPCA, defendants in the District Court, conceded that

Sixth Angel Shepherd Rescue, Inc., w as entitled to attorney’s fees and costs

.

Nonetheless, the defendants objecte d to several aspects of Sixth Angel’s fee petition.

The District Court thoughtfully considered the motion and its oppositi on in a well

reasoned decision in which it reduc ed the amount of the requested award. Th ese timely

appeal s followed. 1

Sixth Angel contend s that the District Court erred in several respects by: (1)

reducing counsel’s hourly rate ; (2) striking time expended by counsel ; (3) refusing to

consider an updated fee petition ; (4) denying a multiplier for the delay endured ; and (5)

rejectin g a s compensable certain costs. 2 The defendants also claim that the District Court

erred by failing to account for Sixth Angel ’ s limited success

.

“We review the reasonableness of an award of attorney’s fees for an abuse of

discretion.” Washington v. Phila

. C n ty. Court of Common Pleas , 89 F.3d 1031, 1034 (3d

Cir. 1996). After reviewing the record in this matter and the thorough opinion of the

District Court , we conclude that the District Court did not err in granting in part and

1 The Di strict Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Appellate

jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

2 Sixth Angel’s opening brief also asserts that the District Court erred by failing to

address the state court proceeding. We need no t address this issue because, contrary to

the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8), Sixth Angel did not present citations to the3

denying in part the motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Accordingly, for substantiall y

the same grounds set forth in the District Court opinion , we will affirm the District

Court’s September 23, 2013 order.

On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ADJUDGED and ORDERED that th e

order of the District Court entered September 23, 2013 , be and the same is hereby

AFFIRMED. The parties shall bear their own costs.

By the Court,

s/D. Brooks Smith

Circuit Judge

Attest:

s/Marcia M. Waldron

Clerk

DATED: November 4, 2015

legal authority and the parts of the record on which it relies. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz , 1

F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 1993).