Reverend Reaves v. City of Mullin, No. 10-1806 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1806 REVEREND FRANKLIN C. REAVES, PhD; VASTENA REAVES; DONALD N. REAVES; HENRY O. REAVES; AMANDA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, and 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, 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 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, Defendants Appellees, and STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant. 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 reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 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 informal in the Goldsboro, 178 F.3d brief); 231, 241 see n.6 also (4th Edwards Cir. v. 1999) City of (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 5

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.