Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07183/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07183-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Richard Elinski
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7183 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/01/2017 Pg: 1 of 2
2

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

Appeal: 16-7183 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/01/2017 Pg: 2 of 2