Court Opinion

ID: 9947158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:00:58.287961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:54.738135
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7050      Doc: 12         Filed: 03/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7050

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

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        IDENTEGO/IDEMIA; SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-01399-TLW)

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

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kathy Reaves, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7050      Doc: 12        Filed: 03/01/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        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. IDENTEGO/IDEMIA, No. 3:22-cv-01399-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)).

                                                    2