Rodney Lail, a/k/a Keith Lail, a/k/a Rodney Keith Lail; Irene Santacroce; Ricky Stephens; Marguerite Stephens; Nicholas C. Williamson; Dan Green, Plaintiffs, v. Jay Saleeby, Aiken, Bridges, Nunn, Elliott & Tyler, P.A.; South Carolina State Budget and Control Board, Movants-Appellees. (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

James B. SPENCER; Doris E Holt, Estate of Doris E. Holt, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Rodney Lail, a/k/a Keith Lail, a/k/a Rodney Keith Lail; Irene Santacroce; Ricky Stephens; Marguerite Stephens; Nicholas C. Williamson; Dan Green, Plaintiffs, v. HORRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; State of South Carolina; South Carolina Law Enforcement Division; David Caldwell; Larry Gainey; Michael Prodan; Mark Keel; Johnny Morgan, Horry County Police Chief , Defendants-Appellees, United States of America; N John Benson; Phil Celestini; Paul Gardner; David M Hardy; Kerry Haynes; Thomas Isabella, Jr.; Michael Kirkpatrick; Thomas Marsh; Monte Dell Mckee; Matthew Perry; George Skaluba; Chris Swecker; Noel Herold; Federal Bureau of Investigations; United States Government; Unknown John Does, Defendants, Jay Saleeby, Aiken, Bridges, Nunn, Elliott & Tyler, P.A.; South Carolina State Budget and Control Board, Movants-Appellees.

No. 18-1682

Decided: March 20, 2019

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

John P. Batson, JOHN P. BATSON, LAW OFFICE, Augusta, Georgia, for Appellants. Eugene H. Matthews, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; James M. Saleeby, Jr., AIKEN BRIDGES ELLIOTT TYLER & SALEEBY, P.A., Florence, South Carolina; Andrew F. Lindemann, LINDEMANN DAVIS & HUGHES, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

James B. Spencer and the Estate of Doris E. Holt appeal the district court's orders adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing the claims against some of the Appellees for failure to effect service of process, adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing the remaining claims with prejudice, and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Spencer v. South Carolina, No. 3:11-cv-00977-MGL (D.S.C. Aug. 30, 2012; Sept. 19, 2013; Jan. 31, 2014; Mar. 1, 2018; & May 16, 2018). 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law