Kathy Reaves v. Kevin Schwedo, No. 23-7031 (4th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-7031 KATHY REAVES, a/k/a Kathy Juanita Reaves, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KEVIN SCHWEDO,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Charles M. Coats, Jr. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Kathy Reaves appeals the district court’s order denying her Fed.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. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.