Manuela Holmes v. Morgan Moore

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-01254-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999528155].. [14-1740]

Appeal: 14-1740

Doc: 28

Filed: 02/12/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1740

MANUELA HOLMES, f/k/a Manuela Moore,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MORGAN H. MOORE,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:13-cv-01254-TLW)

Submitted:

January 29, 2015

Decided:

February 12, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian C. Gambrell, HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Stephanie R. Fajardo, THE FAJARDO LAW
FIRM, LLC, Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1740

Doc: 28

Filed: 02/12/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Manuela Holmes appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing
estoppel

her

action

against

her

for

breach

former

of

husband,

contract
Morgan

and
H.

promissory

Moore.

The

district court premised its dismissal on lack of subject matter
jurisdiction,

applying

diversity jurisdiction.

the

domestic

relations

exception

to

Holmes contends that her claims are not

barred by the domestic relations exception because, she claims,
the property settlement agreement that she seeks to enforce does
not involve issues related to the divorce decree; the settlement
agreement is a contract on its own terms subject to contract law
of South Carolina; and the court erred in failing to grant her
summary

judgment

(although

she

did

not

move

for

summary

judgment) because there were no remaining issues of fact.
We review legal questions, including the breadth of a
district

court’s

jurisdiction,

de

novo.

Simmons

v.

United

Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 762 (4th Cir. 2011).

We

have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and find no
reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

Holmes v. Moore, No. 3:13-cv-01254-TLW

(D.S.C. June 23, 2014).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately

2

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 14-1740

before

Doc: 28

this

court

Filed: 02/12/2015

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3