Court Opinion

ID: 9946993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:00:44.504385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:46.094367
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6357      Doc: 6        Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6357

        WILLIAM HERBERT MCCLADDIE,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN OF EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (6:22-cv-01192-RMG)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024,                                Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William Herbert McCladdie, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6357       Doc: 6         Filed: 02/29/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               After the district court denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, William Herbert

        McCladdie filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of his claims. The

        district court construed this motion as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254

        petition and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. McCladdie then filed another motion

        contesting his conviction.        The district court construed this motion as seeking

        reconsideration of the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and denied it on the merits.

               We have reviewed the record and conclude that McCladdie’s motion for

        reconsideration of the dismissal of his Rule 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction is also an

        unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition.         See Bixby v. Stirling, 90 F.4th 140, 155

        (4th Cir. 2024). As such, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider this motion, id.

        at 154, and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), was required to dismiss it as an unauthorized,

        successive § 2254 petition.

               Because the district court denied, rather than dismissed the motion, we vacate the

        district court’s order and remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss the motion

        for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

                                                                      VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                      2