Edward Saunders v. Harold Clarke

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 28, 2023
• Docket: 22-7201
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).