Deana Kinder v. City of Myrtle Beach

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cv-01416-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000187826].. [17-1224]

Appeal: 17-1224

Doc: 49

Filed: 11/07/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1224

DEANA J. KINDER; ANTHONY K. KINDER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
JOHN DOES 1-99,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:15-cv-01416-RBH)

Submitted: October 31, 2017

Decided: November 7, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 17-1224

Doc: 49

Filed: 11/07/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Thomas J. Intili, INTILI & GROVES CO., L.P.A., Dayton, Ohio, for Appellants.
Michael W. Battle, BATTLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Conway, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-1224

Doc: 49

Filed: 11/07/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Deana J. Kinder and Anthony K. Kinder appeal from the district court’s order
dismissing their action as barred by the South Carolina statute of limitations. We have
reviewed the record provided on appeal and the arguments of the parties, and we find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm in part for the reasons stated by the district
court. Kinder v. City of Myrtle Beach, No. 4:15-cv-01416-RBH (D.S.C. Jan. 19, 2017).
The Kinders also seek to appeal from the order entered by federal district court in
Ohio transferring this case to the district court in South Carolina. We are without
jurisdiction to consider a transfer order entered by a district court not within our territorial
jurisdiction. See Preston Corp. v. Raese, 335 F.2d 827, 828 (4th Cir. 1964); see 28
U.S.C. § 1294(1) (2012). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

3