Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01851/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01851-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jacqueline Taylor Hendricks
Appellant
Robert Mason Hendricks
Appellant
Maurice Hood
Appellee
Rhonda Hunsinger
Appellee
Robert Stepp
Appellee
Michael Taylor
Appellee
Jeannie Weingarth
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1851

ROBERT MASON HENDRICKS; JACQUELINE TAYLOR HENDRICKS, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

 v. 

ROBERT STEPP, Esquire; RHONDA HUNSINGER; MAURICE HOOD; 

JEANNIE WEINGARTH; MICHAEL TAYLOR, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:08-cv-03299-CMC) 

Submitted: December 22, 2009 Decided: January 13, 2010 

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Robert Mason Hendricks and Jacqueline Taylor Hendricks, 

Appellants Pro Se. Mark S. Barrow, William R. Calhoun, Jr., 

SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; 

Katherine Dudley Helms, Christopher John Near, OGLETREE, 

DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Columbia, South Carolina; 

Janet Carol Brooks, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, 

SETTANA & STUBLEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-1851 Doc: 25 Filed: 01/13/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Robert Mason Hendricks and Jacqueline Taylor Hendricks 

appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation, dismissing the Hendricks’s civil action 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denying the 

Hendricks’s motion to amend their complaint. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Hendricks v. 

Stepp, No. 3:08-cv-03299-CMC (D.S.C. filed July 22, 2009; 

entered July 23, 2009). 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

Appeal: 09-1851 Doc: 25 Filed: 01/13/2010 Pg: 2 of 2