United States v. John Elinski , 675 F. App'x 309 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7183
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOHN RICHARD ELINSKI,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.       Leonie M. Brinkema,
    District Judge. (1:14-cr-00431-LMB-1; 1:16-cv-00065-LMB)
    Submitted:   January 26, 2017             Decided:   February 1, 2017
    Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John Richard Elinski, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew John Gardner,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    John Richard Elinski seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2012) motion.      Elinski’s original § 2255 motion was dismissed
    by the district court on February 5, 2016, and his motion to
    amend was filed on June 2, 2016, after this court had dismissed
    the appeal of the original motion.                Because Elinski’s § 2255
    motion was no longer pending before the district court, we find
    no error by the district court in denying Elinski’s motion to
    amend.     See United States v. Craycraft, 
    167 F.3d 451
    , 457 n.6
    (8th Cir. 1999) (noting that the civil rules apply to § 2255
    actions and that motions to amend are reviewed under Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 15 for an abuse of discretion).                  Accordingly, we deny
    leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Elinski’s motion to
    submit evidence in support of appeal and expand the record, deny
    a   certificate    of    appealability,     and   dismiss     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.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-7183

Citation Numbers: 675 F. App'x 309

Judges: Shedd, Diaz, Harris

Filed Date: 2/1/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024