Estate of Doris Holt v. Horry County, South Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999584703-2], denying Motion for other relief [999573544-2]; denying Motion for judicial notice [999584702-2], denying Motion for judicial notice [999530733-2]; denying Motion to amend/correct [999578207-2] Originating case number: 4:02-cv-01859-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999849591]. Mailed to: Ancil B. Garvin, III, Harold Steven Hartness, David Smith, Michael Steven Hartness. [14-1678]

Appeal: 14-1678

Doc: 154

Filed: 06/10/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1678

ESTATE OF DORIS HOLT; RODNEY KEITH LAIL; IRENE SANTACROCE,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
and
JAMES SPENCER; SOUTHERN HOLDINGS,
STEPHENS; MARGUERITE STEPHENS,

INCORPORATED;

RICKY

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

May 31, 2016

Decided:

Before KING, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

June 10, 2016

Appeal: 14-1678

Doc: 154

Filed: 06/10/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Michael G. Sribnick, M.D., J.D., LLC, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellants. Andrew F. Lindemann, DAVIDSON &
LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbus, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1678

Doc: 154

Filed: 06/10/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
The

Appellants,

the

estate

of

Doris

Holt,

Rodney

Keith

Lail, and Irene Santacroce, appeal the district court’s order
denying their most recent motion for vacatur of the court’s 2007
order confirming the settlement of their claims and dismissing
the case with prejudice, and denying recusal of the district
court judge.

As the notice of appeal explicitly specified this

order, that is the only order before this court.

See Fed. R.

App. P. 3(c)(1)(B); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170,
176

(4th

Cir.

2014).

In

their

opening

brief,

however,

the

Appellants fail to challenge the district court’s order, and
have therefore forfeited appellate review of that order.

See

Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., 562 F.3d 599, 605 n.13 (4th
Cir. 2009) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A)).

Accordingly,

we affirm the district court’s order and deny the Appellants’
motions

for

appoint

a

judicial

special

notice,

master.

for
We

recusal,
dispense

to

amend,

with

oral

and

to

argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3