Case ID: f-appx_593/html/0226-01.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

Manuela HOLMES, f/k/a Manuela Moore, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Morgan H. MOORE, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-1740.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 29, 2015.
    Decided: Feb. 12, 2015.
    Brian C. Gambrell, Hamilton & Associates, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stephanie R. Fajardo, The Fa-jardo Law Firm, LLC, Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Manuela Holmes appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her action for breach of contract and promissory estop-pel against her former husband, Morgan H. Moore. The district court premised its dismissal on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, applying the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction. Holmes contends that her claims are not barred by the domestic relations exception because, she claims, the property settlement agreement that she seeks to enforce does not involve issues related to the divorce decree; the settlement agreement is a contract on its own terms subject to contract law of South Carolina; and the court erred in failing to grant her summary judgment (although she did not move for summary judgment) because there were no remaining issues of fact.

We review legal questions, including the breadth of a district court’s jurisdiction, de novo. Simmons v. United Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 762 (4th Cir.2011). We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Holmes v. Moore, No. 3:13-cv-01254-TLW (D.S.C. June 23, 2014).

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 the decisional process. .

AFFIRMED.