The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-1851•Robert Mason Hendricks; Jacqueline Taylor Hendricks v. ROBERT STEPP, Esquire; RHONDA HUNSINGER; MAURICE HOOD; JEANNIE WEINGARTH; MICHAEL TAYLOR
09-1851Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 13, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1851
ROBERT MASON HENDRICKS; JACQUELINE TAYLOR HENDRICKS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ROBERT STEPP, Esquire; RHONDA HUNSINGER; MAURICE HOOD;
JEANNIE WEINGARTH; MICHAEL TAYLOR,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:08-cv-03299-CMC)
Submitted: December 22, 2009 Decided: January 13, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Mason Hendricks and Jacqueline Taylor Hendricks,
Appellants Pro Se. Mark S. Barrow, William R. Calhoun, Jr.,
SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA, Columbia, South Carolina;
Katherine Dudley Helms, Christopher John Near, OGLETREE,
DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Columbia, South Carolina;
Janet Carol Brooks, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN,
SETTANA & STUBLEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Mason Hendricks and Jacqueline Taylor Hendricks
appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation, dismissing the Hendricks’s civil action
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denying the
Hendricks’s motion to amend their complaint. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Hendricks v.
Stepp, No. 3:08-cv-03299-CMC (D.S.C. filed July 22, 2009;
entered July 23, 2009). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.