
    Sean PROA; Margaret Jordan; Gary S. Schiff, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NRT MID-ATLANTIC, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage; NRT Incorporated; Angela Shearer; Sarah Sinnickson, Defendants-Appellees. Sean Proa; Margaret Jordan; Gary S. Schiff, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NRT Mid-Atlantic, Incorporated, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage; NRT Incorporated; Angela Shearer; Sarah Sinnickson, Defendants-Appellees. Sean Proa; Margaret Jordan; Gary S. Schiff, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NRT Mid-Atlantic, Incorporated, d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage; NRT Incorporated; Angela Shearer; Sarah Sinnickson, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 09-1727, 09-1816, 09-1969.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 10, 2010.
    Decided: Oct. 18, 2010.
    William T. Coleman, III, Sheryl S. Levy, Berger & Montague, PC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Patrick J. Massari, Law Office of Patrick J. Massari, Washington, D.C.; Stephen A. Saltzburg, George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Joseph P. Harkins, Erik C. Johnson, Steven E. Kaplan, Littler Mendelson, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
    
      Before WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and ROBERT J. CONRAD, Jr., Chief United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

In this consolidated appeal, Sean Proa, Margaret Jordan, and Gary Schiff (collectively Plaintiffs) challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of NRT Mid-Atlantic, LLC (d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage), NRT Inc., Angela Shearer, and Sarah Sinnickson (collectively Defendants) with respect to their discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiffs also challenge the denial of their discovery motion to compel certain documents and the imposition of monetary sanctions by the magistrate judge and the district court.

Having considered the parties’ briefs and the joint appendix, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court as set forth in its carefully crafted and thorough opinions and order. See Proa v. NRT Mid Atlantic, Inc., 633 F.Supp.2d 209 (D.Md. 2009); Proa v. NRT Mid Atlantic, Inc., 618 F.Supp.2d 447 (D.Md.2009); Proa v. NRT Mid Atlantic, Inc., 608 F.Supp.2d 690 (D.Md.2009); (J.A. 681-82) (Order filed May 27, 2009, Docket Entry 227). We deny Plaintiffs’ motion for a declaration that the appellate record include the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) depositions and other papers attached as exhibits to Plaintiffs’ emergency motion to supplement the record filed with the district court. We also deny Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ claims for violating Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(7) and (9)(A).

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.  