Case Name: Deana J. KINDER; Anthony K. Kinder, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH, Defendant-Appellee, and John Does 1-99, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-07
Citations: 700 F. App'x 287
Docket Number: No. 17-1224
Parties: Deana J. KINDER; Anthony K. Kinder, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH, Defendant-Appellee, and John Does 1-99, Defendants.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
Deana J. KINDER; Anthony K. Kinder, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH, Defendant-Appellee, and John Does 1-99, Defendants.
No. 17-1224
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 31, 2017
Decided: November 7, 2017
Thomas J. Intili, INTILI & GROVES CO., L.P.A., Dayton, Ohio, for Appellants. Michael W. Battle, BATTLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Conway, South Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Deana J. Kinder and Anthony K. Kinder appeal from the district court's order dismissing their action as barred by the South Carolina statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record provided on appeal and the arguments of the parties, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm in part for the reasons stated by the district court. Kinder v. City of Myrtle Beach, No. 4:15-cv-01416-RBH, 2017 WL 227969 (D.S.C. Jan. 19, 2017).
The Kinders also seek to appeal from the order entered by federal district court in Ohio transferring this case to the district court in South Carolina. We are without jurisdiction to consider a transfer order entered by a district court not within our territorial jurisdiction. See Preston Corp. v. Raese, 335 F.2d 827, 828 (4th Cir. 1964); see 28 U.S.C. § 1294(1) (2012). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART'