Court Opinion

ID: 9391107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 21:00:39.915015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.032757
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7361      Doc: 16          Filed: 04/28/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7361

        COREY J. JONES,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        MCCOY, C/O at Keen Mountain Correctional Center; B. HURLEY, C/O at Keen
        Mountain Correctional Center; SHANNON KEEN; S. K. COLEMAN, C/O at Keen
        Mountain Correctional Center; CASEY, C/O at Keen Mountain Correctional Center;
        C. SAUCIER, Nurse at Keen Mountain Correctional Center; OWENS, Major at
        Keen Mountain Correctional Center; CARL MANIS, Regional Administrator for the
        Virginia Department of Corrections Western Region,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:21-cv-00610-EKD-JCH)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                         Decided: April 28, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Corey J. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7361      Doc: 16          Filed: 04/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Corey J. Jones appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider

        the court’s prior order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for

        failure to prosecute. * Because Jones’ motion was filed more than 28 days after entry of the

        district court’s dismissal order, it is properly construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion.

        See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse

        its discretion by denying Jones’ motion. See Aikens, 652 F.3d at 501 (noting standard of

        review). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. Jones v. McCoy, No. 7:21-cv-

        00610-EKD-JCH (W.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2022). 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 Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
        complaint, or its earlier order denying his motion for appointment of counsel, those orders
        are not properly before us. “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a
        jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Parties in civil
        cases have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an
        appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends or reopens the appeal
        period, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)-(6). The district court entered its order dismissing Jones’
        complaint on May 2, 2022. Jones noted this appeal, at the earliest, on November 15, 2022.
        Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). And although the
        notice of appeal is timely as to the motion to reconsider, because Jones filed that motion
        more than 28 days after entry of the dismissal order, an appeal from that order does not
        bring up the court’s prior orders for appellate review. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv),
        (vi); Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (explaining that appeal
        from order denying Rule 60(b) motion does not bring up underlying order for review).
        Thus, our review is limited to the district court’s order denying Jones’ motion to reconsider.

                                                      2