Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0442-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Glynndeavin von FOX, PlaintiffAppellant, v. The State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant-Appellee. Glynndeavin von Fox, PlaintiffAppellant, v. The State of South Carolina; South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, Defendants-Appellees. Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Medical University of South Carolina, Defendant-Appellee. Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arizona State University, Defendant-Appellee. Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Market Street Pavilion Hotel, Defendant-Appellee. Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. College of Charleston, Defendant-Appellee. Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ritz Carlton Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Japan, The Sovereign Country of, Defendant-Appellee. Glynndeavin von Fox, PlaintiffAppellant, v. Prenner & Marvel PA; State Department of the US, The; State of South Carolina, The, Defendants-Appellees. Glynndeavin von Fox, PlaintiffAppellant, v. City of Charleston Police Department, Defendant-Appellee. Glynndeavin von Fox, PlaintiffAppellant, v. South Carolina, The State of; Solicitor Scarlett A Wilson, Defendants-Appellees. Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. US State Department, The, Defendant-Appellee. Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The State of South Carolina; Charleston County Clerk of Court, Defendants-Appellees. Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charleston Police Department, Defendant-Appellee. Glynndeavin von Fox, PlaintiffAppellant, v. South Carolina, State of, Defendant-Appellee. Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr Marisa Nava, Ph.D., Defendant-Appellee. Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Savage Law Firm, Defendant-Appellee. Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. Randolph Waid, Ph.D., Defendant-Appellee. Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Grover Beau Seaton, Esq.; B. J. Bilton, Paralegal; Rachel McKein, Esq.; Seaton Law Firm, Defendants-Appellees. Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keefer & Keefer LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-1265, No. 16-1272, No. 16-1276, No. 16-1312, No. 16-1313, No. 16-1314, No. 16-1315, No. 16-1316, No. 16-1333, No. 16-1334, No. 16-1335, No. 16-1336, No. 16-1337, No. 16-1338, No. 16-1339, No. 16-1340, No. 16-1342, No. 16-1343, No. 16-1344, No. 16-1345
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 16, 2016
    Decided: August 24, 2016
    Glynndeavin von Fox, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Glynnd-eavin von Fox appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and dismissing each case without prejudice for failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals for the reasons stated by the district court, von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00106-RMG, 2016 WL 693523 (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00132-RMG, 2016 WL 816775 (D.S.C. Feb. 29, 2016); von Fox v. Med. Univ. of S.C., No. 2:16-cv-00179-RMG, 2016 WL 693525 (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 2016); von Fox v. Ariz. State Univ., No. 2:16-cv-00097-RMG, 2016 WL 927153 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox v. Market St. Pavillion Hotel, No. 2:16-cv-00187-RMG, 2016 WL 1046984 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Coll, of Charleston, No. 2:16-cv-00188-RMG, 2016 WL 1047362 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Ritz Carlton Corp., No. 2:16-cv-00186-RMG, 2016 WL 1046977 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Japan, No. 2:16-cv-00225-RMG, 2016 WL 927176 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox v. Prenner & Marvel PA, No. 2:16-cv-00184-RMG, 2016 WL 1046970 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. City of Charleston Police Dep’t, No. 2:16-cv-00098-RMG, 2016 WL 927154 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00227-RMG, 2016 WL 1046998 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. U.S. State Dep’t, No. 2:16-cv-00185-RMG, 2016 WL 1046971 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00131-RMG, 2016 WL 927155 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox v. Charleston Police Dep’t, No. 2:16-cv-00136-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-ev-00228-RMG, 2016 WL 1046999 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Nava, No. 2:16-cv-00394-RMG, 2016 WL 1047000 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Savage Law Firm, No. 2:16-cv-00180-RMG, 2016 WL 1046965 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Waid, No. 2:16-cv-00181-RMG, 2016 WL 1046966 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Seaton Law Firm, No. 2:16-cv-00182-RMG, 2016 WL 1046968 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Keefer & Keefer, No. 2:16-cv-00183-RMG, 2016 WL 1046969 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016). 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.

DISMISSED