Elisabeth Lenes; Steven Lenes v. Loral Langemeier

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1012
ELISABETH LENES; STEVEN LENES,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
LORAL LANGEMEIER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00316-CWH)
Submitted: July 25, 2011 Decided: July 29, 2011
Before KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Mark Phillips, William C. Wood, Jr., Erin R. Stuckey, NELSON,
MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH. LLP, Columbia, South Carolina;
J. Mitchell Little, SCHEEF & STONE, LLP, Frisco, Texas, for
Appellant. Guy M. Burns, Jonathan S. Coleman, JOHNSON, POPE,
BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP, Tampa, Florida; James C. Bradley,
Nina H. Fields, RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC,
Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Loral Langemeier appeals the district court’s order
denying her motion to compel arbitration in the underlying
diversity action. We have reviewed the record included on
appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and find no error in the
district court’s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm. See Am.
Recovery Corp. v. Computerized Thermal Imaging, 96 F.3d 88, 92
(4th Cir. 1996) (noting that “whether a party has agreed to
arbitrate an issue is a matter of contract interpretation: ‘[A]
party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute
which he has not agreed so to submit.’”) (citations omitted).
We deny the Appellees’ motion to file a sur-reply brief and to
schedule 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 --