Lail v. Horry County, South Carolina

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit January 22, 2010

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1955

RODNEY KEITH LAIL,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

and

JAMES SPENCER; IRENE SANTACROCE; RICKY STEPHENS; MARGUERITE STEPHENS; DORIS HOLT; NICHOLAS C. WILLIAMSON; SOUTHERN HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiffs,

HORRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; HORRY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; JAMES ALBERT ALLEN, JR.; SIDNEY RICK THOMPSON; JEFFREY S. CALDWELL; CHARLES MCCLENDON; JAY BRANTLY; ANDY CHRISTENSEN; MICHAEL STEVEN HARTNESS; HAROLD STEVEN HARTNESS,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH, SC; MYRTLE BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT; WARREN GALL, individually and in his official capacity as an officer with the Myrtle Beach Police Department; RICHARD PAROSH, individually and in his official capacity; J.L. ZIMMERMAN, individually and in his official capacity; RICHARD B. WAY; JOHN DOES; HORRY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; ANCIL B. GARVIN, III; DAVID SMITH,

Defendants. No. 08-1962

RICKY STEPHENS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

and

RODNEY KEITH LAIL; JAMES SPENCER; IRENE SANTACROCE; MARGUERITE STEPHENS; DORIS HOLT; NICHOLAS C. WILLIAMSON; SOUTHERN HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiffs,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH SC; MYRTLE BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT; WARREN GALL, individually and in his official capacity as an officer with the Myrtle Beach Police Department; RICHARD PAROSH, individually and in his official capacity; J.L. ZIMMERMAN, individually and in his official capacity; RICHARD B. WAY; JOHN DOES; HORRY COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; ANCIL B. GARVIN, III; DAVID SMITH,

Defendants.

2 No. 08-1964

MARGUERITE STEPHENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

RODNEY KEITH LAIL; JAMES SPENCER; IRENE SANTACROCE; RICKY STEPHENS, DORIS HOLT; NICHOLAS C. WILLIAMSON; SOUTHERN HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiffs,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

Defendants.

3 No. 08-1965

JAMES SPENCER,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

and

RODNEY KEITH LAIL; IRENE SANTACROCE; RICKY STEPHENS; MARGUERITE STEPHENS; DORIS HOLT; NICHOLAS C. WILLIAMSON; SOUTHERN HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiffs,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

Defendants.

4 No. 08-1966

IRENE SANTACROCE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

and

RODNEY KEITH LAIL; JAMES SPENCER; RICKY STEPHENS; MARGUERITE STEPHENS; DORIS HOLT; NICHOLAS C. WILLIAMSON; SOUTHERN HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiffs,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

Defendants.

5 No. 08-1967

DORIS HOLT,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

and

RODNEY KEITH LAIL; JAMES SPENCER; IRENE SANTACROCE; RICKY STEPHENS; MARGUERITE STEPHENS; NICHOLAS C. WILLIAMSON; SOUTHERN HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiffs,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

Defendants.

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

6 Submitted: December 21, 2009 Decided: January 22, 2010

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Keith Lail, Ricky Stephens, Marguerite Stephens, James Spencer, Irene Santacroce, Doris Holt, Appellants Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Sandra Jane Senn, Charleston, South Carolina; Edward Glenn Elliott, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

7 PER CURIAM:

Rodney Lail, Ricky Stephens, Marguerite Stephens,

James Spencer, Irene Santacroce, and Doris Holt appeal the

district court’s orders denying their motion pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b) seeking relief from the dismissal of their case

pursuant to a settlement agreement and denying their motion

seeking disqualification of the district court judge. On

appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the

Appellants’ brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). With respect to the

court’s order denying the Appellants’ Rule 60(b) motion, the

Appellants’ opening brief fails to challenge the district

court’s dispositive conclusion that the motion was not timely

filed. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. With

respect to the order declining to disqualify the district court

judge, we have reviewed the record and find no error. We

therefore affirm that order for the reasons stated by the

district court. Southern Holdings, Inc. v. Horry County, South

Carolina, No. 4:02-cv-01859-RBH (D.S.C. Aug. 13, 2009). We also

deny the Appellants’ emergency ex parte request for issuance of

a writ of mandamus. 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

Reference

Status: Unpublished