Court Opinion

ID: 9911828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 21:00:57.833801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:56:18.441592
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6969      Doc: 12         Filed: 12/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6969

        ANTWYN GIBBS,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        DONALD AMES,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:21-cv-00577)

        Submitted: December 14, 2023                                Decided: December 19, 2023

        Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Antwyn Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
        GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6969      Doc: 12        Filed: 12/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Antwyn Gibbs appeals the district court’s order denying his postjudgment motion

        for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we deny Gibbs’ motion for appointment of counsel on appeal and affirm the

        district court’s order. * Gibbs v. Ames, No. 2:21-cv-00577 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 15, 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

              *
                 To the extent Gibbs seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
        magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, or
        the court’s subsequent orders denying his other postjudgment motions, those orders are not
        properly before us in this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (4)(A).

                                                    2