Case Name: ABRASIVES-SOUTH INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AWUKO ABRASIVES WANDMACHER GMBH & CO KG; Wandmacher GMBH; Marty Korte, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-24
Citations: 696 F. App'x 624
Docket Number: No. 16-2295
Parties: ABRASIVES-SOUTH INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AWUKO ABRASIVES WANDMACHER GMBH & CO KG; Wandmacher GMBH; Marty Korte, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 624–624

Head Matter:
ABRASIVES-SOUTH INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AWUKO ABRASIVES WANDMACHER GMBH & CO KG; Wandmacher GMBH; Marty Korte, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-2295
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 16,- 2017
Decided: August 24, 2017
John B. Kern, JOHN B. KERN INTERNATIONAL LAW, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Russell S. Abrams, Karen E. Spain, K & L GATES LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Ap-pellees.
Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Abrasives-South, Inc., which brought this action against Defendants asserting several state law claims, including claims of interference with contractual relations, fraud and deceit, and unfair trade practices claims, appeals the district court's orders granting Defendants summary judgment and denying its Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. See Abrasives-South Inc. v. Awuko Abrasives Wandmacher GMBH & Co KG, No. 2:16-cv-00768-RMG (D.S.C. Aug. 17, 2016 & Oct. 4, 2016); see also Hooper v. Ebenezer Sr. Servs. & Rehab. Ctr., 386 S.C. 108, 687 S.E.2d 29, 33 (2009) ("Equitable tolling may be applied where it is justified under all the circumstances . [but it] is a doctrine that should be used sparingly and only when the interests of justice compel its use."). 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