Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01678/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01678-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1678

ESTATE OF DORIS HOLT; RODNEY KEITH LAIL; IRENE SANTACROCE,

Plaintiffs – 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.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:02-cv-01859-RBH)

Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: June 10, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 14-1678 Doc: 154 Filed: 06/10/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Michael G. Sribnick, M.D., J.D., LLC, Charleston, South 

Carolina, for Appellants. Andrew F. Lindemann, DAVIDSON & 

LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbus, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1678 Doc: 154 Filed: 06/10/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 14-1678 Doc: 154 Filed: 06/10/2016 Pg: 3 of 3