Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-07031/USCOURTS-ca4-23-07031-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7031

KATHY REAVES, a/k/a Kathy Juanita Reaves,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KEVIN SCHWEDO, individually; THOMAS SCOTT WILKERSON, individually; 

ROBERT BAILES, individually; CHARLES M. DICKENS, individually; KEVIN 

THOMAS, individually; LARRY MCNEILL, individually; KATHRYN M. 

CREWS, individually; CATHY HAZELWOOD, individually; MARLBORO 

COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE; COUNTY OF MARLBORO; SOUTH CAROLINA 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, NLETS; BILL PHILLIPS, individually; 

CHARLES M. COATS, JR., SLED-CJIS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:23-cv-01911-TLW)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kathy Juanita Reaves, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK & 

WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees Thomas Scott Wilkerson and 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7031 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Charles M. Coats, Jr.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7031 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Kathy Reaves appeals the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 

motion.*

 We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion in the denial of 

this motion. See Aikens, 652 F.3d at 501 (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s order. Reaves v. Schwedo, No. 4:23-cv-01911-TLW (D.S.C. 

Oct. 10, 2023). 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

* To the extent Reaves seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing her complaint, that order is not 

properly before us in this appeal. See Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) 

(en banc) (“[A]n appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) relief does not bring up the underlying 

judgment for review.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7031 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3