Court Opinion

ID: 9881772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 21:00:45.685887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:48.264790
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1549      Doc: 10         Filed: 10/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1549

        PAUL A. BOYNE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        MICHAEL SPONHEIMER, in individual and official capacity as state trooper;
        SAMANTHA MCCORD, in individual and official capacity as state trooper; JANE
        DOE, in individual and official capacity as state trooper,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00578-MSN-LRV)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Paul A. Boyne, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1549       Doc: 10         Filed: 10/02/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Paul A. Boyne appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint

        against Defendants because Boyne failed to comply with a previously issued prefiling

        injunction. After Boyne appealed, the district court granted Boyne’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

        motion, temporarily stayed the prefiling injunction, and ordered Boyne to show cause why

        the temporary stay should not be lifted.

               As an initial matter, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on

        Boyne’s Rule 60(b) motion while this appeal was pending. See Fort Knox Music Inc. v.

        Baptiste, 257 F.3d 108, 111 (2d Cir. 2001) (explaining that a district court lacks jurisdiction

        to sua sponte vacate its own judgment under Rule 60(b) “if an appeal from the judgment

        [is] pending and the court of appeals [has] not . . . remand[ed] for consideration of such

        relief”); see also Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887, 891 (4th Cir. 1999)

        (“[A]llowing a district court to grant a Rule 60(b) motion while an appeal from the

        judgment is pending cannot be considered in furtherance of the appeal”). Thus, the district

        court’s order granting Rule 60(b) relief neither moots this appeal nor otherwise undermines

        our authority to assess the propriety of the dismissal order.

               Turning to the merits of the dismissal order, we have reviewed the record and

        discern no error in the district court’s decision to dismiss Boyne’s complaint. See Mathews

        v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 348 (1976) (recognizing that “[t]he fundamental

        requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a

        meaningful manner,” which is met so long as “a person in jeopardy of serious loss ([is]

        given) notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it” (internal quotation marks

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1549      Doc: 10          Filed: 10/02/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        omitted)); see also Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F 3d 812, 819 (4th Cir. 2004)

        (“[B]efore a judge issues a prefiling injunction . . . he must afford a litigant notice and an

        opportunity to be heard.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, although we grant leave to

        proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the appealed-from order. Boyne v. Sponheimer,

        No. 1:23-cv-00578-MSN-LRV (E.D. Va. filed May 5, 2023 & entered May 9, 2023). 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

                                                      3