Filed: Aug. 11, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6193 LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HENRY MCMASTER; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (3:09-cv-01924-DCN) Submitted: July 20, 2010 Decided: August 11, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Ed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6193 LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HENRY MCMASTER; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (3:09-cv-01924-DCN) Submitted: July 20, 2010 Decided: August 11, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Edw..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6193 LARRY EDWARD HENDRICKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HENRY MCMASTER; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (3:09-cv-01924-DCN) Submitted: July 20, 2010 Decided: August 11, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Edward Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Edward Hendricks appeals the district court’s orders adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Hendricks’ petition for a writ of audita querela and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hendricks v. McMaster, No. 3:09- cv-01924-DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 17, 2009; Jan. 14, 2010). 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
