Filed: Feb. 03, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2194 E. YVETTE BARNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL H. HULSEY, Esq., Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD HAYHURST, Third Party Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-96-2939-23-2) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 3, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2194 E. YVETTE BARNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL H. HULSEY, Esq., Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD HAYHURST, Third Party Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-96-2939-23-2) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 3, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affir..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2194 E. YVETTE BARNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL H. HULSEY, Esq., Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD HAYHURST, Third Party Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-96-2939-23-2) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 3, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. E. Yvette Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Pedrick McWilliams, NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD, Columbia, South Carolina; James Edward Holler, HOLLER, DENNIS, CORBETT, GARNER & ORMOND, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: E. Yvette Barnes appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Paul H. Hulsey in her diversity action in which she raised claims of legal malpractice, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.* Ac- cordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Barnes v. Hulsey, No. CA-96-2939-23-2 (D.S.C. July 10, 1998). 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 * In her informal brief, Barnes explicitly has abandoned on appeal her claims of fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 2