Court Opinion

ID: 9947159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:00:59.258325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:54.166936
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7135       Doc: 12        Filed: 03/01/2024      Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7135

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

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        CORPORAL CHARLES M. DICKENS, Individually; SOUTH CAROLINA
        HIGHWAY PATROL; SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION;
        SOUTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES; SOUTH CAROLINA
        DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; COUNTY OF MARLBORO,

                             Defendants - Appellees,

                      and

        MARLBORO COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,

                             Defendant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:22-cv-00639-TLW)

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

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7135      Doc: 12         Filed: 03/01/2024    Pg: 2 of 3

        Kathy Reaves, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK &
        WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee South Carolina Law Enforcement
        Division.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7135         Doc: 12       Filed: 03/01/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Kathy Reaves appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for contempt

        and an order to show cause. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the

        informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Reaves’ informal brief does not challenge

        the basis for the district court’s disposition of the motion—namely, that it lacked

        jurisdiction over the motion due to Reaves’ then-pending appeal of the district court’s prior

        orders—she has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey,

        775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under

        Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly,

        we affirm the district court’s order. Reaves v. Dickens, No. 4:22-cv-00639-TLW (D.S.C.

        Oct. 31, 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

                                                      3