Charles Ramsey v. Kimberly Runion

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 21, 2023
• Docket: 22-7434
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7434 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7434

CHARLES CLAUDE RAMSEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

KIMBERLY H. RUNION, Director of the Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:11-cv-00396-RBS-FBS)

Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 21, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Claude Ramsey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7434 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Claude Ramsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his

self-styled motion to strike, which he filed 10 years after the district court denied relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and closed the case. We construe Ramsey’s underlying

motion to strike as a second or successive § 2254 petition or, alternatively, a Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his initial § 2254 petition. Because

Ramsey did not obtain prefiling authorization from this court to file such a motion, the

district court lacked jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); United States v. McRae,

793 F.3d 392, 397-400 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability

as unnecessary, see Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009), vacate the district court’s

order, and remand with instructions for the district court to dismiss the motion for lack of

jurisdiction. We deny Ramsey’s motion to strike filed in this court and 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