Reaves v. City of Mullins

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 4, 2011
Docket10-1806
StatusUnpublished

This text of Reaves v. City of Mullins (Reaves v. City of Mullins) 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
Reaves v. City of Mullins, (4th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1806

REVEREND FRANKLIN C. REAVES, PhD; VASTENA REAVES; DONALD N. REAVES; HENRY O. REAVES; AMANDA EVANS; VALERIA REAVES MARTIN; HERCULES W. REAVES; FREDDY L. REAVES,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

KATHY J. REAVES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF MULLINS; MARION COUNTY; W. KENNETH MCDONALD, individually and in his official capacity as Mayor; TERRY B. STRICKLAND, individually and in his official capacity as member of Mullins City Council; JO A. SANDERS, individually and in her official capacity as member of Mullins City Council; JAMES W. ARMSTRONG, individually and in his official capacity as member of Mullins City Council; PATRICIA A. PHILLIPS, individually and in her official capacity as member of Mullins City Council; D. WAYNE COLLINS, individually and in his official capacity as member of Mullins City Council; DANIEL B. SHELLEY, JR.; GEORGE HARDWICK, individually and in his official capacity as City Administrator for City of Mullins; EDWIN P. ROGERS, individually and in his official capacity as Marion County Administrator; K. DONALD FLING, individually and in his official capacity as Marion County Code Enforcement Officer; JOHN Q. ATKINSON, individually and in his official capacity as member of Marion County Council; ELOISE W. ROGERS, individually and in her official capacity as member of Marion County Council; TOM SHAW, individually and in his official capacity as member of Marion County Council; ALLEN FLOYD, individually and in his official capacity as member of Marion County Council; MILTON TROY, individually and in his official capacity as member of Marion County Council; PEARLY BRITT, individually and in his official capacity as member of Marion County; ELISTA H. SMITH, individually and in her official capacity as member of Marion County Council; CITY OF MULLINS POLICE DEPARTMENT; RUSSELL BASS, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of City of Mullins Police Department; VICKIE NICHOLS, individually and in her official capacity,

Defendants – Appellees,

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Defendant.

No. 10-1973

REVEREND FRANKLIN C. REAVES, PhD; VASTENA REAVES; DONALD N. REAVES; HENRY O. REAVES; AMANDA EVANS; VALERIA REAVES MARTIN; HERCULES W. REAVES; FREDDY L. REAVES,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

CITY OF MULLINS; MARION COUNTY; W. KENNETH MCDONALD, individually and in his official capacity as Mayor; TERRY B. STRICKLAND, individually and in his official capacity as member of Mullins City Council; JO A. SANDERS, individually and in her official capacity as member of Mullins City Council; JAMES W. ARMSTRONG, individually and in his official capacity as member of Mullins City Council; PATRICIA A. PHILLIPS, individually and in her official capacity as member of Mullins City Council; D. WAYNE COLLINS, individually and in his official capacity as member of Mullins City Council; DANIEL B. SHELLEY, JR.; GEORGE HARDWICK, individually and in his official capacity as City

2 Administrator for City of Mullins; EDWIN P. ROGERS, individually and in his official capacity as Marion County Administrator; K. DONALD FLING, individually and in his official capacity as Marion County Code Enforcement Officer; JOHN Q. ATKINSON, individually and in his official capacity as member of Marion County Council; ELOISE W. ROGERS, individually and in her official capacity as member of Marion County Council; TOM SHAW, individually and in his official capacity as member of Marion County Council; ALLEN FLOYD, individually and in his official capacity as member of Marion County Council; MILTON TROY, individually and in his official capacity as member of Marion County Council; PEARLY BRITT, individually and in his official capacity as member of Marion County; ELISTA H. SMITH, individually and in her official capacity as member of Marion County Council; CITY OF MULLINS POLICE DEPARTMENT; RUSSELL BASS, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of City of Mullins Police Department; VICKIE NICHOLS, individually and in her official capacity,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:07-cv-01487-TLW-TER)

Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 4, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franklin C. Reaves, Vastena Reaves, Donald N. Reaves, Henry O. Reaves, Amanda Evans, Valeria Reaves Martin, Hercules W. Reaves, and Freddy L. Reaves, Appellants Pro Se. Douglas Charles

3 Baxter, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Robert Thomas King, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

4 PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Appellants appeal the

district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on their civil action and

denying their subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

reconsideration. Appellants also appeal the magistrate judge’s

order denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider

the order granting sanctions to Appellees. In their informal

briefs, Appellants fail to address the dispositive issues in the

case. Therefore, Appellants have forfeited appellate review of

those issues. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review to issues

raised in the informal brief); see also Edwards v. City of

Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (finding

failure to raise issue in opening brief constituted abandonment

of that issue). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

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

Related

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro
178 F.3d 231 (Fourth Circuit, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Reaves v. City of Mullins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reaves-v-city-of-mullins-ca4-2011.