Charles Ramsey v. Kimberly Runion ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 22-7434      Doc: 11         Filed: 03/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22-7434
    CHARLES CLAUDE RAMSEY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    KIMBERLY H. RUNION, Director of the Virginia Center for Behavioral
    Rehabilitation,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:11-cv-00396-RBS-FBS)
    Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 21, 2023
    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Charles Claude Ramsey, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 22-7434       Doc: 11         Filed: 03/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Charles Claude Ramsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
    self-styled motion to strike, which he filed 10 years after the district court denied relief on
    his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition and closed the case. We construe Ramsey’s underlying
    motion to strike as a second or successive § 2254 petition or, alternatively, a Fed. R. Civ.
    P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his initial § 2254 petition. Because
    Ramsey did not obtain prefiling authorization from this court to file such a motion, the
    district court lacked jurisdiction. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (b)(3)(A); United States v. McRae,
    
    793 F.3d 392
    , 397-400 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
    as unnecessary, see Harbison v. Bell, 
    556 U.S. 180
    , 183 (2009), vacate the district court’s
    order, and remand with instructions for the district court to dismiss the motion for lack of
    jurisdiction. We deny Ramsey’s motion to strike filed in this court and 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.
    VACATED AND REMANDED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-7434

Filed Date: 3/21/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/22/2023