Reverend Reaves v. Mullins, City of, No. 10-1979 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1979 REVEREND FRANKLIN C. REAVES, PhD; VASTENA REAVES, All other similarly situated, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. MULLINS, CITY OF; 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; 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 Council; ELISTA H. SMITH, individually and in her official capacity as member of Marion County Council; KENT WILLIAMS, 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; MULLINS POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF; RUSSELL BASS, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Mullins Police Department; EDWIN ROGERS, individually and in official capacity as City of Mullins Planner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:07-cv-03559-TLW) Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 4, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin C. Reaves and Vastena Reaves, Appellants Pro Se. Douglas Charles Baxter, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Michelle Parsons Kelley, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Robert Thomas King, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Appellants seek to appeal the district court s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on their civil action and denying their subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). [T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement. The Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). district court s order denying the Rule motion was entered on the docket on December 11, 2009. notice of appeal was filed on August 24, 2010. 59(e) The Appellants did not file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period. Moreover, their miscellaneous motions filed after the entry of the final order did not affect the time to file an appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(4)(A). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
