Court Opinion

ID: 9391104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 21:00:37.423604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.469159
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7201      Doc: 15         Filed: 04/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7201

        EDWARD GERMAINE SAUNDERS,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:19-cv-00166-MFU-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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Edward Germaine Saunders, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7201      Doc: 15         Filed: 04/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Edward Germaine Saunders appeals the district court’s order denying as untimely

        his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motions for relief from the district court’s prior order denying

        relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We review the district court’s denial of a Rule

        60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir.

        2011) (en banc). A motion under Rule 60(b)(6) “must be made within a reasonable time”

        after entry of the underlying judgment or order. Upon review, we discern no abuse of

        discretion in the district court’s denial of Saunders’ motions. 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

               *
                A certificate of appealability is unnecessary when we affirm the denial of a Rule
        60(b) motion “only on timeliness grounds.” United States v. Williams, 56 F.4th 366,
        370 n.3 (4th Cir. 2023).

                                                     2