Case ID: f-appx_654/html/0126-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ESTATE OF Doris HOLT; Rodney Keith Lail; Irene Santacroce, Plaintiff-Appellants, and James Spencer; Southern Holdings, Incorporated; Ricky Stephens; Marguerite Stephens, Plaintiffs, v. HORRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; Horry County Police Department; James Albert Allen, Jr.; Sidney Rick Thompson; Jeffrey S. Caldwell; Charles McClendon; Jay Brantly; Andy Christensen; David Smith; Michael Steven Hartness; Harold Steven Hartness; Ancil B. Garvin, III, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-1678
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 31, 2016
    Decided: June 10, 2016
    Michael G. Sribnick, M.D., J.D., LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellants. Andrew F. Lindemann, Davidson & Linde-mann, P.A., Columbus, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before KING, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Appellants, the estate of Doris Holt, Rodney Keith Lail, and Irene Santacroce, appeal the district court’s order denying their most recent motion for vacatur of the court’s 2007 order confirming the settlement of their claims and dismissing the case with prejudice, and denying recusal of the district court judge. As the notice of appeal explicitly specified this order, that is the only order before this court. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 176 (4th Cir. 2014). In their opening brief, however, the Appellants fail to challenge the district court’s order, and have therefore forfeited appellate review of that order. See Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., 562 F.3d 599, 605 n.13 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A))/Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and deny the Appellants’ motions for judicial notice, for recusal, to amend, and to appoint a special master. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ■adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process,

AFFIRMED.