Estate of Doris Holt v. Horry County, South Carolina ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED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, INCORPORATED; RICKY
STEPHENS; MARGUERITE STEPHENS,
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: June 10, 2016
Before KING, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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 judicial notice, for recusal, to amend, and to
appoint a special master. 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 in
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3