In re: Carl C. Hendricks, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2006
In Re: CARL C. HENDRICKS, JR.,
Debtor.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CARL C. HENDRICKS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CAROLYN BAIR,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
KEVIN CAMPBELL,
Trustee.
No. 02-2298
In Re: CARL C. HENDRICKS, JR.,
Debtor.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CARL C. HENDRICKS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
CAROLYN BAIR,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
KEVIN CAMPBELL,
Trustee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-00-3135-2-18; BK-99-80230)
Submitted: March 26, 2004 Decided: May 12, 2004
Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl C. Hendricks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Austin, Jr.,
ROBERT E. AUSTIN, JR., P.A., Leesburg, Florida; Michael Conrady,
CAMPBELL LAW FIRM, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

*The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In No. 01-2006, Carl C. Hendricks, Jr., appeals from the
district court’s order which dismissed as untimely his appeal from
the bankruptcy court’s consent order entered May 12, 2002, and
denied his motion to conduct further discovery during the pendency
of his appeal. In No. 02-2298, Hendricks appeals from the
magistrate judge’s order enforcing a settlement entered into
between the parties in open court.* We have reviewed the record
and found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court and magistrate judge.
Hendricks v. Bair, Nos. CA-00-3135-2-18; BK-99-80230 (D.S.C.
July 31, 2002; Oct. 23, 2002). 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

-- 3 of 3 --