Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hendricks v. Stepp, 09-1851 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1851 Visitors: 29
Filed: Jan. 13, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1851 ROBERT MASON HENDRICKS; JACQUELINE TAYLOR HENDRICKS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ROBERT STEPP, Esquire; RHONDA HUNSINGER; MAURICE HOOD; JEANNIE WEINGARTH; MICHAEL TAYLOR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:08-cv-03299-CMC) Submitted: December 22, 2009 Decided: January 13, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGO
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1851 ROBERT MASON HENDRICKS; JACQUELINE TAYLOR HENDRICKS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ROBERT STEPP, Esquire; RHONDA HUNSINGER; MAURICE HOOD; JEANNIE WEINGARTH; MICHAEL TAYLOR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:08-cv-03299-CMC) Submitted: December 22, 2009 Decided: January 13, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Mason Hendricks and Jacqueline Taylor Hendricks, Appellants Pro Se. Mark S. Barrow, William R. Calhoun, Jr., SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Katherine Dudley Helms, Christopher John Near, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Columbia, South Carolina; Janet Carol Brooks, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Mason Hendricks and Jacqueline Taylor Hendricks appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissing the Hendricks’s civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denying the Hendricks’s motion to amend their complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hendricks v. Stepp, No. 3:08-cv-03299-CMC (D.S.C. filed July 22, 2009; entered July 23, 2009). 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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer