Court Opinion

ID: 9947157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:00:57.226222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:48.548391
License: Public Domain

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

                                             UNPUBLISHED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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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: 2 of 3

        Charles M. Coats, Jr.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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

                                                    3