Case Name: PENLAND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; Charles W. Penland, Sr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SELECT FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; Ken Anthony, Attorney for Select Financial Services, LLC; Jean Bradley, "Ad Litem" for Select Financial Services, LLC; Clement Broncale, Principal for Select Financial Services, LLC; Acorn Capitol Group, LLC, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-09
Citations: 315 F. App'x 456
Docket Number: No. 09-1019
Parties: PENLAND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; Charles W. Penland, Sr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SELECT FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; Ken Anthony, Attorney for Select Financial Services, LLC; Jean Bradley, “Ad Litem” for Select Finan cial Services, LLC; Clement Broncale, Principal for Select Financial Services, LLC; Acorn Capitol Group, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 315
Pages: 456–457

Head Matter:
PENLAND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; Charles W. Penland, Sr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SELECT FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; Ken Anthony, Attorney for Select Financial Services, LLC; Jean Bradley, “Ad Litem” for Select Finan cial Services, LLC; Clement Broncale, Principal for Select Financial Services, LLC; Acorn Capitol Group, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-1019.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 26, 2009.
Decided: March 9, 2009.
Charles W. Penland, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Penland Financial Services, Inc., and Charles W. Penland, Sr., appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice the civil action Penland filed on behalf of himself and Penland Financial Services, Inc., for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Penland has failed to raise any arguments relevant to the district court's reasoning for dismissing the action; thus, those claims have been abandoned. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999); see 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. 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.