Manuela Holmes, f/k/a Manuela Moore v. Morgan H. Moore

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1740
MANUELA HOLMES, f/k/a Manuela Moore,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MORGAN H. MOORE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:13-cv-01254-TLW)
Submitted: January 29, 2015 Decided: February 12, 2015
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian C. Gambrell, HAMILTON & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Stephanie R. Fajardo, THE FAJARDO LAW
FIRM, LLC, Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Manuela Holmes appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing her action for breach of contract and promissory
estoppel against her former husband, Morgan H. Moore. The
district court premised its dismissal on lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, applying the domestic relations exception to
diversity jurisdiction. Holmes contends that her claims are not
barred by the domestic relations exception because, she claims,
the property settlement agreement that she seeks to enforce does
not involve issues related to the divorce decree; the settlement
agreement is a contract on its own terms subject to contract law
of South Carolina; and the court erred in failing to grant her
summary judgment (although she did not move for summary
judgment) because there were no remaining issues of fact.
We review legal questions, including the breadth of a
district court’s jurisdiction, de novo. Simmons v. United
Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 762 (4th Cir. 2011). We
have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Holmes v. Moore, No. 3:13-cv-01254-TLW
(D.S.C. June 23, 2014).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --