Cynthia Holmes v. James Becker, No. 19-1572 (4th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1572 CYNTHIA HOLMES, a/k/a C. Holmes, a/k/a Cynthia Holmes, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES Y. BECKER, Individually; M.M. CASKEY, Individually; HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A.; MIKELL R. SCARBOROUGH, in official capacity and, as indicated, individually re: unofficial acts, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:17-cv-02949-BHH) Submitted: November 21, 2019 Decided: November 25, 2019 Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cynthia C. Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Mary McFarland Caskey, Mary Cothonneau Eldridge, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Andrew Lindemann, LINDEMANN, DAVIS & HUGHES, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cynthia Holmes appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her civil action and denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. Holmes’ action related to a state court sanctions award and a related discovery and sanction order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Holmes v. Becker, No. 2:17-cv-02949-BHH (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2019 & May 23, 2019). We grant Holmes’ motions to exceed the page limitations for the informal brief and to amend her notice of appeal to include an appeal from the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion and deny Holmes’ motion to correct the record and for clarification. 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.