Kathy Reaves, a/k/a Kathy Juanita Reaves v. CORPORAL CHARLES M. DICKENS, Individually

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7135
KATHY REAVES, a/k/a Kathy Juanita Reaves,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORPORAL CHARLES M. DICKENS, Individually; SOUTH CAROLINA
HIGHWAY PATROL; SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION;
SOUTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES; SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; COUNTY OF MARLBORO,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MARLBORO COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:22-cv-00639-TLW)
Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Kathy Reaves, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK &
WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Kathy Reaves appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for contempt
and an order to show cause. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Reaves’ informal brief does not challenge
the basis for the district court’s disposition of the motion—namely, that it lacked
jurisdiction over the motion due to Reaves’ then-pending appeal of the district court’s prior
orders—she has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey,
775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under
Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s order. Reaves v. Dickens, No. 4:22-cv-00639-TLW (D.S.C.
Oct. 31, 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

-- 3 of 3 --