LAIL v. HORRY CTY

Full title: Rodney Keith LAIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, and James Spencer; Irene…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jan 22, 2010

363 F. App'x 223 (4th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

Nos. 08-1955, 08-1962, 08-1964, 08-1965, 08-1966, 08-1967.

Submitted: December 21, 2009.

Decided: January 22, 2010.

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).

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.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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.