Filed: Jul. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6386 EUGENE ELLIOTT MORLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cv-00134-MSD-LRL) Submitted: July 17, 2019 Decided: July 24, 2019 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6386 EUGENE ELLIOTT MORLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cv-00134-MSD-LRL) Submitted: July 17, 2019 Decided: July 24, 2019 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6386
EUGENE ELLIOTT MORLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cv-00134-MSD-LRL)
Submitted: July 17, 2019 Decided: July 24, 2019
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Elliott Morley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Elliott Morley appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge in part, construing Morley’s “Motion for Further
Action” as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and dismissing it as untimely. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Morley v.
Clarke, No. 2:15-cv-00134-MSD-LRL (E.D. VA. Feb. 22, 2019). We deny a certificate
of appealability as unnecessary, see Harbison v. Bell,
556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009), 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.
AFFIRMED
2