Deana Kinder v. City of Myrtle Beach


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1224 Doc: 49 Filed: 11/07/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1224 DEANA J. KINDER; ANTHONY K. KINDER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH,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 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 17-1224 Doc: 49 Filed: 11/07/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Deana J. Kinder and Anthony K. Kinder appeal from the district court’s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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?