Court Opinion

ID: 9961900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:45.040449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:14.673672
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6406      Doc: 7        Filed: 04/19/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6406

        EUGENE PETER SCHULER,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        CHADWICK DOTSON, Director, VDOC,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01151-LMB-JFA)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                           Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Eugene Peter Schuler, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6406         Doc: 7      Filed: 04/19/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Eugene Peter Schuler appeals the district court’s order construing his motion for

        rehearing as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and dismissing it on

        that basis. * Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed

        Schuler’s motion for rehearing as a successive § 2254 petition over which it lacked

        jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See 28

        U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

               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

               *
                 To the extent that Schuler seeks to appeal the district court’s February 24, 2023,
        order construing Schuler’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive
        § 2254 petition and dismissing it on that basis, Schuler’s notice of appeal is untimely as to
        that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

                                                     2