USCA4 Appeal: 24-1846 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1846

KATHY REAVES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PATRICK DEAN BLANCHARD, RCSO Indv. & Prof.; CHARLES MICHAEL DICKENS; JAMES A. SEGARS, SHP Troop 5, Indv. & Prof.; CHRISTOPHER N. WILLIAMSON, SCDPS. Indiv.; KENNETH PHELPS, SCDPS - Indv. & Prof.; SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL; RICHARDSON PLOWDEN, Law Firm; PATRICK L. HUFF, Attorney for SHP, Indv.; LISA THOMAS, Attorney for SHP, Indv.; LORI JENELLE, Paralegal For SHP, Indv.; DIRECTOR SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (4:24-cv-03418-JD)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 27, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kathy Reaves, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1846 Doc: 17 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Kathy Reaves appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge, dismissing Reaves’s complaint for failure to comply with a prefiling

injunction, and denying as moot several of Reaves’s motions, including to retransfer the

case to the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. Preliminarily, we grant

Reaves’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief out of time. We have reviewed the

record and Reaves’s arguments on appeal, and we discern no reversible error. The district

court did not err by finding Reaves’s complaint fell within the scope of the prefiling

injunction that the court had previously imposed on Reaves, nor by dismissing the

complaint when Reaves did not comply with the requirements of that injunction. And the

district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to transfer the complaint back to the

Southern District of Georgia. See Saudi v. Northrop Grumman Corp.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (noting district courts have “broad discretion in denying a request for a

transfer”);

(b) (listing locations in which venue is appropriate).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Reaves v. Blanchard, No. 4:24-cv-03418-

JD (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2024). 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

2