Court Opinion

ID: 999762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:30:35.32351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:32:21.838496
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RONALD M. BARMOY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THE TIMES AND ALLEGANIAN
                                                                        No. 98-2239
COMPANY, t/a The Cumberland
Times-News, now known as
Thomson Newspapers, Incorporated,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-97-1729-WMN)

Submitted: May 11, 1999

Decided: September 24, 1999

Before ERVIN* and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
*Judge Ervin participated in the consideration of this case but died
prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum
of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
COUNSEL

Raymond Frederick Weston, TROZZO & LOWERY, L.L.C., Cum-
berland, Maryland, for Appellant. Mark Lerner, SATTERLEE, STE-
PHENS, BURKE & BURKE, L.L.P., New York, New York;
Lawrence Joseph Quinn, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Barmoy appeals the district court's order granting summary
judgment in favor of the Defendant and denying his motion to compel
additional discovery in this defamation action. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.

Barmoy brought this defamation action against Defendant Thom-
son Newspapers, Inc., then doing business as The Times and Alle-
ganian Company ("T&A"), after T&A published several articles that
allegedly contained false and defamatory statements about him. At the
time the articles were published, Barmoy was a member of the Board
of Commissioners of the Frostburg Housing Authority ("FHA"). The
articles in question concerned Barmoy's alleged support of the
Board's decision to hire his son, Bradley Barmoy, as executive direc-
tor of the FHA. Further, the articles reflected the opinion that Bar-
moy's support of his son for this position constituted a conflict of
interest.

T&A removed the case to the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland. Thereafter, T&A filed a motion for summary
judgment and Barmoy filed motions for an extension of the discovery

                    2
deadline and to compel depositions from T&A's key agents in the
publication of the newspaper articles in question.

The district court considered Barmoy's motion to compel, which
alleged that the parties needed more discovery before summary judg-
ment would be appropriate. The court noted that Barmoy failed to file
a Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) affidavit setting out his reasons for needing
additional discovery. Further, the court found that additional discov-
ery would not provide evidence that the articles at issue contained
false information. After reviewing evidence presented by both sides,
the court concluded that the statements made in the articles were not
false or made with actual malice, granted summary judgment in favor
of T&A, and denied Barmoy's motion to compel as moot. Barmoy
appealed.

We have carefully considered the district court's opinion, the writ-
ten arguments of counsel, and the relevant portions of the record.
Having done so, we find no reversible error in the district court's dis-
position of T&A's motion for summary judgment and Barmoy's
motion to compel. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment
for the reasons stated in its opinion. See Barmoy v. Times and Alle-
ganian Co., No. CA-97-1729-WMN (D. Md. July 16, 1998). We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3