USCA4 Appeal: 23-2100 Doc: 27 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2100

CRISELDA REYES; EMMANUEL REYES,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

DORCHESTER COUNTY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; MIKE GOLDSTON, Dorchester County Public Works Engineering Manager; JASON L. WARD, Dorchester County Administrator; JOHN FRAMPTON, Dorchester County Attorney,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

JASON CARRAHER, Dorchester County Public Works Director,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00520-DCN)

Submitted: November 15, 2024 Decided: January 14, 2025

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2100 Doc: 27 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Criselda Reyes, Emmanuel Reyes, Appellants Pro Se. Jonathan Joel Anderson, Jonathan Lee Anderson, ANDERSON LAW GROUP, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2100 Doc: 27 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Criselda and Emmanuel Reyes appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying their motion for summary judgment,

granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissing their action. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

order. Reyes v. Dorchester Cnty., No. 2:21-cv-00520-DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 2023). We

deny as unnecessary Defendants’ motion for joinder of Emmanuel Reyes as a party to this

appeal, as he is already a party, and we construe the filings on appeal as made on both his

and Criselda Reyes’s behalf. We further deny the Reyeses’ motions to correct misnomer,

for joinder, to impose sanctions against Defendants’ counsel, and to reconsider this court’s

order extending Defendants’ time to respond to motion for sanctions. 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