UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1265
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1272
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR NIKKI
HALEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 16-1276
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1312
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1313
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARKET STREET PAVILION HOTEL,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1314
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
2
COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1315
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RITZ CARLTON CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1316
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAPAN, The Sovereign Country of,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1333
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
3
PRENNER & MARVEL PA; STATE DEPARTMENT OF THE US, The; STATE
OF SOUTH CAROLINA, The,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 16-1334
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1335
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA, The State of; SOLICITOR SCARLETT A WILSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 16-1336
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
4
US STATE DEPARTMENT, The,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1337
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLESTON COUNTY CLERK OF COURT,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 16-1338
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1339
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
5
SOUTH CAROLINA, State of,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1340
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR MARISA NAVA, Ph.D.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1342
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SAVAGE LAW FIRM,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1343
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
6
L. RANDOLPH WAID, Ph.D.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 16-1344
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GROVER BEAU SEATON, Esq.; B. J. BILTON, Paralegal; RACHEL
MCKEIN, Esq.; SEATON LAW FIRM,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 16-1345
GLYNNDEAVIN VON FOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KEEFER & KEEFER LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard M, Gergel, District Judge.
(2:16-cv-00106-RMG; 2:16-cv-00132-RMG; 2:16-cv-00179-RMG; 2:16-
cv-00097-RMG; 2:16-cv-00187-RMG; 2:16-cv-00188-RMG; 2:16-cv-
00186-RMG; 2:16-cv-00225-RMG; 2:16-cv-00184-RMG; 2:16-cv-00098-
RMG; 2:16-cv-00227-RMG; 2:16-cv-00185-RMG; 2:16-cv-00131-RMG;
2:16-cv-00136-RMG; 2:16-cv-00228-RMG; 2:16-cv-00394-RMG; 2:16-cv-
00180-RMG; 2:16-cv-00181-RMG; 2:16-cv-00182-RMG; 2:16-cv-00183-
RMG)
7
Submitted: August 16, 2016 Decided: August 24, 2016
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Glynndeavin von Fox, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
8
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Glynndeavin von Fox appeals
the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the
magistrate judge and dismissing each case without prejudice for
failing to state a claim. We have reviewed the records and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals for the reasons stated by
the district court. von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00106-
RMG (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-
cv-00132-RMG (D.S.C. Feb. 29, 2016); von Fox v. Med. Univ. of S.C.,
No. 2:16-cv-00179-RMG (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 2016); von Fox v. Ariz.
State Univ., No. 2:16-cv-00097-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox
v. Market St. Pavilion Hotel, No. 2:16-cv-00187-RMG (D.S.C. Mar.
10, 2016); von Fox v. Coll. of Charleston, No. 2:16-cv-00188-RMG
(D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Ritz Carlton Corp., No. 2:16-
cv-00186-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. Japan, No. 2:16-
cv-00225-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox v. Prenner & Marvel
PA, No. 2:16-cv-00184-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. City
of Charleston Police Dep’t, No. 2:16-cv-00098-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 7,
2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00227-RMG (D.S.C.
Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. U.S. State Dep’t, No. 2:16-cv-00185-
RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox v. South Carolina, No. 2:16-
cv-00131-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox v. Charleston Police
Dep’t, No. 2:16-cv-00136-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2016); von Fox v.
9
South Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00228-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von
Fox v. Nava, No. 2:16-cv-00394-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von Fox
v. Savage Law Firm, No. 2:16-cv-00180-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016);
von Fox v. Waid, No. 2:16-cv-00181-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2016); von
Fox v. Seaton Law Firm, No. 2:16-cv-00182-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 10,
2016); von Fox v. Keefer & Keefer, No. 2:16-cv-00183-RMG (D.S.C.
Mar. 10, 2016). 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.
DISMISSED
10