Lilly v. Knox

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 25, 2009
• Docket: 08-6822
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6822

THURMAN VAN LILLY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HARVEY KNOX; JOHN ALLEN; TRACY LEWIS; LANE CRIBB; MATTHEW J. MODICA; LINDA CANTEEN; TARA S. TAGGART,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

ISAAC PYATT,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (2:06-cv-01138-JFA)

Submitted: February 3, 2009 Decided: February 25, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thurman Van Lilly, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Thurman Van Lilly appeals the district court’s order

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of

the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2000) complaint. * We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. Lilly v. Knox, No. 2:06-cv-01138-JFA

(D.S.C. Apr. 23, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* Although Lilly’s notice of appeal refers to the district court’s original judgment, the order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, and the order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, it is timely only as to the denial of Rule 60(b) relief. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).