Court Opinion

ID: 9555501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-13 02:01:51.031167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:03.804585
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1794      Doc: 32           Filed: 08/11/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                     FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-1794

        RAJENDER K. SALGAM

                     Plaintiff – Appellant

        and

        MUNUSAMY KANDASAMY

                     Plaintiff

        v.

        ADVANCED SOFTWARE SYSTEMS, INC.

                     Defendant - Appellee

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-00029-AJT-TCB)

        Submitted: April 28, 2023                                         Decided: August 11, 2023

        Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: John B. Flood, BERLIKLAW, LLC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellant.
        Timothy M. McConville, PRAEMIA LAW, PLLC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1794       Doc: 32         Filed: 08/11/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Rajender K. Salgam was sanctioned after committing fraud upon the district court

        by falsifying evidence. The district court dismissed Salgam’s claims with prejudice and

        awarded Advanced Software System attorney’s fees and costs. Salgam appeals, claiming

        that the district court abused its discretion in several respects. Finding no reversible error,

        we affirm.

               To begin, Salgam claims that the district court failed to consider whether lesser

        sanctions would be appropriate before dismissing his claims with prejudice. But Salgam

        has waived this argument by failing to ask the district court to consider sanctions short of

        dismissal. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Absent exceptional

        circumstances, we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” (cleaned up)

        (quoting Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs, LLC, 560 F.3d 235, 242 (4th Cir. 2009))). And

        even if we were to consider Salgam’s argument, we would reject it. Salgam misreads the

        district court’s order. The district court held that dismissal with prejudice, standing alone,

        was an insufficient sanction for Salgam’s fraud because he had previously stipulated to

        dismissal with prejudice of his claims. In doing so, the district court necessarily held that

        imposing only a sanction short of dismissal with prejudice would be insufficient. Cf.

        United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 461 (4th Cir. 1993) (explaining that

        dismissal with prejudice is “the most severe sanction” available).

               Next, Salgam claims that the district court erred by failing to rule on his objections

        to a magistrate judge’s recommendation before sanctioning him. But a district court need

        not explicitly rule upon a party’s objections, so long as it considered and rejected them.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1794      Doc: 32         Filed: 08/11/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        See Wall v. Rasnick, 42 F.4th 214, 220 (4th Cir. 2022). And even accepting Salgam’s

        premise that the district court failed to rule upon his objections, his argument still fails.

        Proceedings continued in the district court for nearly two years following the court’s award

        of sanctions. During this time, Salgam never raised his argument that the district court

        failed to rule upon his objections. Consequently, he has not preserved it for appeal.

        Malbon v. Penn. Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 636 F.2d 936, 940–41 (4th Cir. 1980).

               Lastly, Salgam contends the district court abused its discretion in calculating the

        amount of fees and costs awarded by failing to consider the economic impact of the

        dismissal of Salgam’s claims with prejudice. But we will reverse a district court’s award

        of attorney’s fees only if it is clearly wrong or based upon an error of law. McAfee v.

        Bozcar, 738 F.3d 81, 88 (4th Cir. 2013). The district court’s award is neither.

               We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process. The district court’s orders are

                                                                                       AFFIRMED.

                                                     3