James Spencer v. Horry County, South Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:02-cv-01859-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999480801].. [14-1666]

Appeal: 14-1666

Doc: 35

Filed: 11/24/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1666

JAMES SPENCER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
RODNEY KEITH LAIL;
INCORPORATED; RICKY
HOLT,

IRENE SANTACROCE; SOUTHERN HOLDINGS,
STEPHENS; MARGUERITE STEPHENS; DORIS

Plaintiffs,
v.
ANCIL B. GARVIN, III; DAVID SMITH; HORRY COUNTY, SOUTH
CAROLINA; HORRY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; JAMES ALBERT
ALLEN, JR.; SIDNEY RICK THOMPSON; JEFFREY S. CALDWELL;
CHARLES MCCLENDON; JAY BRANTLY; ANDY CHRISTENSEN; HAROLD
STEVEN HARTNESS; MICHAEL STEVEN HARTNESS,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:02-cv-01859-RBH)

Submitted:

November 20, 2014

Decided:

November 24, 2014

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 14-1666

Doc: 35

Filed: 11/24/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

James Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. David Smith, Greensboro, North
Carolina; Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia,
South
Carolina;
Harold
Steven
Hartness,
Charlotte,
North
Carolina; Michael Steven Hartness, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1666

Doc: 35

Filed: 11/24/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James

Spencer

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

denying Spencer’s latest motions for recusal of the district
court judge and for a “declatory judgment” vacating the judgment
on the settlement agreement in this case.
record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

Spencer v. Garvin,

No. 4:02-cv-01859-RBH (D.S.C. June 11 & 18, 2014).

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

3