Brian Morgan v. David Ballard ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 24-6306      Doc: 15         Filed: 11/08/2024     Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 24-6306
    BRIAN C. MORGAN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
    Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (2:13-cv-20212)
    Submitted: October 18, 2024                                  Decided: November 8, 2024
    Before RICHARDSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Brian C. Morgan, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea Nease Proper, Michael Ray Williams,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 24-6306      Doc: 15          Filed: 11/08/2024     Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Brian C. Morgan appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
    recommendation and denying Morgan’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking
    reconsideration of its order dismissing Morgan’s prior Rule 60(b) motions as an
    unauthorized, successive 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition. ∗ We have reviewed the record and
    find no reversible error. See Justus v. Clarke, 
    78 F.4th 97
    , 104 (4th Cir. 2023) (reviewing
    denial of Rule 60(b) relief for abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 
    144 S. Ct. 1096 (2024)
    .
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Morgan v. Ballard, No. 2:13-cv-20212
    (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 22, 2024). We deny Morgan’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
    ∗
    Because a certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s
    jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive habeas
    petition, United States v. McRae, 
    793 F.3d 392
    , 400 (4th Cir. 2015), we likewise conclude
    that no certificate of appealability is required to appeal the district court’s order denying
    reconsideration of that decision.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 24-6306

Filed Date: 11/8/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/9/2024