Case ID: f-appx_158/html/0428-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francis NWANKWO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Patricia R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 05-6972.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 28, 2005.
    Decided Dec. 13, 2005.
    Francis Nwankwo, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Francis Nwankwo appeals district court orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and denying his subsequent motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Nwankwo v. Stansberry, No. CA-05-111 (E.D.N.C. filed Apr. 14, 2005; entered Apr. 21, 2005, and filed June 9, 2005; entered June 17, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED 
      
       Nwankwo’s motion for reconsideration should be construed as a Rule 59(e) motion because it was filed no later than ten days after the district court entered its judgment dismissing his complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The timely filing of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion tolls the time to appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). Thus, Nwankwo’s notice of appeal, filed within thirty days of the denial of his motion for reconsideration, was timely as to both the order denying the motion for reconsideration and the underlying order. Id.