DARNELL v. << (2018)

In a prior appeal, we reviewed the district court's award of quantum meruit attorney's fees and costs to Darren Marshall Hart in the matter of Darnell v. Lloyd, No. 4:14-cv-00094-HCM-LRL, 2016 WL 1464564 (E.D. Va. 2016). Although we concluded that the district court “thoroughly analyzed” each of the factors that must be considered in awarding such fees, we vacated the district court's order and remanded with instructions to the district court to calculate and explain the basis for the fee award in light of, and with reference to, the factors specified in County of Campbell v. Howard, 133 Va. 19, 112 S.E. 876, 885 (1922). Darnell v. Hart, 689 F. App'x 195, 197 (4th Cir. 2017).

On remand, the district court complied with our instructions and provided additional analysis of the relevant factors and specified how its consideration of each of the factors affected its computation of the award of attorney's fees to Hart. Although the district court's computation resulted in an amount of fees less than that which was awarded upon the court's prior consideration, the district court increased the fee amount to $7500, determining that this amount was “fair and reasonable under the circumstances.” We find that the district court fully complied with our direction on remand and that it did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to Hart. See McAfee v. Boczar, 738 F.3d 81, 88 (4th Cir. 2013).

Hart also challenges the award of $2,298.20 in costs, contending that he was entitled to a greater amount. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Darnell v. Hart, No. No. 4:14-cv-00094-HCM-LRL (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 15, 2017; entered Nov. 16, 2017). 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.

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.