Deana Kinder v. City of Myrtle Beach, No. 17-1224 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1224 DEANA J. KINDER; ANTHONY K. KINDER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH,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 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Deana J. Kinder and Anthony K. Kinder appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their action as barred by the South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

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.