Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01345/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01345-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keefer & Keefer LLC
Appellee
Glynndeavin von Fox
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1265

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1272

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR NIKKI 

HALEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1276

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Appeal: 16-1345 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/24/2016 Pg: 1 of 10
2

MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1312

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1313

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARKET STREET PAVILION HOTEL,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1314

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Appeal: 16-1345 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/24/2016 Pg: 2 of 10
3

COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1315

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RITZ CARLTON CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1316

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JAPAN, The Sovereign Country of,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1333

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Appeal: 16-1345 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/24/2016 Pg: 3 of 10
4

PRENNER & MARVEL PA; STATE DEPARTMENT OF THE US, The; STATE 

OF SOUTH CAROLINA, The,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1334

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY OF CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1335

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA, The State of; SOLICITOR SCARLETT A WILSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1336

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Appeal: 16-1345 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/24/2016 Pg: 4 of 10
5

US STATE DEPARTMENT, The,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1337

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLESTON COUNTY CLERK OF COURT,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1338

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1339

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Appeal: 16-1345 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/24/2016 Pg: 5 of 10
6

SOUTH CAROLINA, State of,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1340

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR MARISA NAVA, Ph.D.,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1342

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SAVAGE LAW FIRM,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1343

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Appeal: 16-1345 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/24/2016 Pg: 6 of 10
7

L. RANDOLPH WAID, Ph.D.,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1344

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GROVER BEAU SEATON, Esq.; B. J. BILTON, Paralegal; RACHEL 

MCKEIN, Esq.; SEATON LAW FIRM,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1345

GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KEEFER & KEEFER LLC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard M, Gergel, District Judge. 

(2:16-cv-00106-RMG; 2:16-cv-00132-RMG; 2:16-cv-00179-RMG; 2:16-

cv-00097-RMG; 2:16-cv-00187-RMG; 2:16-cv-00188-RMG; 2:16-cv00186-RMG; 2:16-cv-00225-RMG; 2:16-cv-00184-RMG; 2:16-cv-00098-

RMG; 2:16-cv-00227-RMG; 2:16-cv-00185-RMG; 2:16-cv-00131-RMG; 

2:16-cv-00136-RMG; 2:16-cv-00228-RMG; 2:16-cv-00394-RMG; 2:16-cv00180-RMG; 2:16-cv-00181-RMG; 2:16-cv-00182-RMG; 2:16-cv-00183-

RMG)

Appeal: 16-1345 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/24/2016 Pg: 7 of 10
8

Submitted: August 16, 2016 Decided: August 24, 2016

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Glynndeavin von Fox, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1345 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/24/2016 Pg: 8 of 10
9

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Glynndeavin 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 (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-

cv-00132-RMG (D.S.C. Feb. 29, 2016); von Fox v. Med. Univ. of S.C., 

No. 2:16-cv-00179-RMG (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 2016); von Fox v. Ariz. 

State Univ., No. 2:16-cv-00097-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox 

v. Market St. Pavilion Hotel, No. 2:16-cv-00187-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 

10, 2016); von Fox v. Coll. of Charleston, No. 2:16-cv-00188-RMG

(D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Ritz Carlton Corp., No. 2:16-

cv-00186-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Japan, No. 2:16-

cv-00225-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox v. Prenner & Marvel 

PA, No. 2:16-cv-00184-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. City 

of Charleston Police Dep’t, No. 2:16-cv-00098-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 

2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00227-RMG (D.S.C. 

Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. U.S. State Dep’t, No. 2:16-cv-00185-

RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-

cv-00131-RMG (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. 

Appeal: 16-1345 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/24/2016 Pg: 9 of 10
10

South Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00228-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von 

Fox v. Nava, No. 2:16-cv-00394-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox 

v. Savage Law Firm, No. 2:16-cv-00180-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); 

von Fox v. Waid, No. 2:16-cv-00181-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von 

Fox v. Seaton Law Firm, No. 2:16-cv-00182-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 

2016); von Fox v. Keefer & Keefer, No. 2:16-cv-00183-RMG (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

Appeal: 16-1345 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/24/2016 Pg: 10 of 10