Case Name: Robert Mason HENDRICKS; Jacqueline Taylor Hendricks, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert STEPP, Esquire; Rhonda Hunsinger; Maurice Hood; Jeannie Weingarth; Michael Taylor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-13
Citations: 360 F. App'x 447
Docket Number: No. 09-1851
Parties: Robert Mason HENDRICKS; Jacqueline Taylor Hendricks, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert STEPP, Esquire; Rhonda Hunsinger; Maurice Hood; Jeannie Weingarth; Michael Taylor, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 447–448

Head Matter:
Robert Mason HENDRICKS; Jacqueline Taylor Hendricks, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert STEPP, Esquire; Rhonda Hunsinger; Maurice Hood; Jeannie Weingarth; Michael Taylor, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-1851.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 22, 2009.
Decided: Jan. 13, 2010.
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.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 2009 WL 2224524 (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.