Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07751/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07751-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
St. Aubyn Sebastian Gayle
Appellant
Gene Johnson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7751

ST. AUBYN SEBASTIAN GAYLE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-6036

ST. AUBYN SEBASTIAN GAYLE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:05-cv-00681-REP)

Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 28, 2008

Appeal: 07-7751 Doc: 19 Filed: 04/28/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

St. Aubyn Sebastian Gayle, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell

Theisen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7751 Doc: 19 Filed: 04/28/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
*Though Gayle has filed a motion for production of documents

pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the Act is not

applicable to federal courts. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1)(B), 552(f)(1)

(2000).

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

St. Aubyn Sebastian Gayle appeals the district court’s

orders denying his motion to toll the limitation period for filing

a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and

his motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Gayle v. Johnson, No.

3:05-cv-00681-REP (E.D. Va. Nov. 15, 2007 & Dec. 18, 2007).

Additionally, we deny Gayle’s motion for production of documents.*

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

Appeal: 07-7751 Doc: 19 Filed: 04/28/2008 Pg: 3 of 3