Case Name: James SPENCER, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Rodney Keith Lail; Irene Santacroce; Southern Holdings, Incorporated; Ricky Stephens; Marguerite Stephens; Doris Holt, Plaintiffs, v. Ancil B. GARVIN, III; David Smith; Horry County, South Carolina; Horry County Police Department; James Albert Allen, Jr.; Sidney Rick Thompson; Jeffrey S. Caldwell; Charles McClendon; Jay Brantly; Andy Christensen; Harold Steven Hartness; Michael Steven Hartness, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-24
Citations: 585 F. App'x 851
Docket Number: No. 14-1666
Parties: James SPENCER, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Rodney Keith Lail; Irene Santacroce; Southern Holdings, Incorporated; Ricky Stephens; Marguerite Stephens; Doris Holt, Plaintiffs, v. Ancil B. GARVIN, III; David Smith; Horry County, South Carolina; Horry County Police Department; James Albert Allen, Jr.; Sidney Rick Thompson; Jeffrey S. Caldwell; Charles McClendon; Jay Brantly; Andy Christensen; Harold Steven Hartness; Michael Steven Hartness, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 851–851

Head Matter:
James SPENCER, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Rodney Keith Lail; Irene Santacroce; Southern Holdings, Incorporated; Ricky Stephens; Marguerite Stephens; Doris Holt, Plaintiffs, v. Ancil B. GARVIN, III; David Smith; Horry County, South Carolina; Horry County Police Department; James Albert Allen, Jr.; Sidney Rick Thompson; Jeffrey S. Caldwell; Charles McClendon; Jay Brantly; Andy Christensen; Harold Steven Hartness; Michael Steven Hartness, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-1666.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 20, 2014.
Decided: Nov. 24, 2014.
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Janies Spencer appeals the district court's orders denying Spencer's latest motions for recusal of the district court judge and for a "declaratory judgment" vacating the judgment on the settlement agreement in this case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Spencer v. Garvin, No. 4:02-cv-01859-RBH (D.S.C. June 11 & 18, 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.