Glynndeavin v. n Fox v. State

Fourth Circuit

Glynndeavin v. n Fox v. State

668 F. App'x 442

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 24, 2016

Docket16-1265, 16-1272, 16-1276, 16-1312, 16-1313, 16-1314, 16-1315, 16-1316, 16-1333, 16-1334, 16-1335, 16-1336, 16-1337, 16-1338, 16-1339, 16-1340, 16-1342, 16-1343, 16-1344, 16-1345

StatusUnpublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 668 F. App'x 442 (Glynndeavin v. n Fox v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glynndeavin v. n Fox v. State, 668 F. App'x 442 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*444 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Glynnd-eavin 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, 2016 WL 693523 (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00132-RMG, 2016 WL 816775 (D.S.C. Feb. 29, 2016); von Fox v. Med. Univ. of S.C., No. 2:16-cv-00179-RMG, 2016 WL 693525 (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 2016); von Fox v. Ariz. State Univ., No. 2:16-cv-00097-RMG, 2016 WL 927153 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox v. Market St. Pavillion Hotel, No. 2:16-cv-00187-RMG, 2016 WL 1046984 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Coll, of Charleston, No. 2:16-cv-00188-RMG, 2016 WL 1047362 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Ritz Carlton Corp., No. 2:16-cv-00186-RMG, 2016 WL 1046977 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Japan, No. 2:16-cv-00225-RMG, 2016 WL 927176 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox v. Prenner & Marvel PA, No. 2:16-cv-00184-RMG, 2016 WL 1046970 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. City of Charleston Police Dep’t, No. 2:16-cv-00098-RMG, 2016 WL 927154 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00227-RMG, 2016 WL 1046998 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. U.S. State Dep’t, No. 2:16-cv-00185-RMG, 2016 WL 1046971 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00131-RMG, 2016 WL 927155 (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. South Carolina, No. 2:16-ev-00228-RMG, 2016 WL 1046999 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Nava, No. 2:16-cv-00394-RMG, 2016 WL 1047000 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Savage Law Firm, No. 2:16-cv-00180-RMG, 2016 WL 1046965 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Waid, No. 2:16-cv-00181-RMG, 2016 WL 1046966 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Seaton Law Firm, No. 2:16-cv-00182-RMG, 2016 WL 1046968 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Keefer & Keefer, No. 2:16-cv-00183-RMG, 2016 WL 1046969 (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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*444 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Glynnd-eavin 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, 2016 WL 693523 (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00132-RMG, 2016 WL 816775 (D.S.C. Feb. 29, 2016); von Fox v. Med. Univ. of S.C., No. 2:16-cv-00179-RMG, 2016 WL 693525 (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 2016); von Fox v. Ariz. State Univ., No. 2:16-cv-00097-RMG, 2016 WL 927153 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox v. Market St. Pavillion Hotel, No. 2:16-cv-00187-RMG, 2016 WL 1046984 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Coll, of Charleston, No. 2:16-cv-00188-RMG, 2016 WL 1047362 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Ritz Carlton Corp., No. 2:16-cv-00186-RMG, 2016 WL 1046977 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Japan, No. 2:16-cv-00225-RMG, 2016 WL 927176 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox v. Prenner & Marvel PA, No. 2:16-cv-00184-RMG, 2016 WL 1046970 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. City of Charleston Police Dep’t, No. 2:16-cv-00098-RMG, 2016 WL 927154 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00227-RMG, 2016 WL 1046998 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. U.S. State Dep’t, No. 2:16-cv-00185-RMG, 2016 WL 1046971 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00131-RMG, 2016 WL 927155 (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. South Carolina, No. 2:16-ev-00228-RMG, 2016 WL 1046999 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Nava, No. 2:16-cv-00394-RMG, 2016 WL 1047000 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Savage Law Firm, No. 2:16-cv-00180-RMG, 2016 WL 1046965 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Waid, No. 2:16-cv-00181-RMG, 2016 WL 1046966 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Seaton Law Firm, No. 2:16-cv-00182-RMG, 2016 WL 1046968 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Keefer & Keefer, No. 2:16-cv-00183-RMG, 2016 WL 1046969 (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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 F. App'x 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glynndeavin-v-n-fox-v-state-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack