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: 2010-12-30
Citations: 406 F. App'x 738
Docket Number: No. 10-1590
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 AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 406
Pages: 738–738

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. 10-1590.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 10, 2010.
Decided: Dec. 30, 2010.
Robert Mason Hendricks, 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 Brooks Holmes, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., McKay, Cauthen, Settana & Stubley, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Hendricks and Jacqueline Hendricks appeal the district court's order denying relief on their Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to vacate the district court's July 22, 2009 dismissal of their civil action. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants' motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir.2008); Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co., 116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir.1997). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment 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.