Filed: May 29, 2001
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6465 ARTHUR WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN GOODY, Supervisor; CORRECTIONAL OFFI- CER BAKER, Property Officer; A. MORRIS, Ser- geant, Property Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-756-2) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 29, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Cir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6465 ARTHUR WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAPTAIN GOODY, Supervisor; CORRECTIONAL OFFI- CER BAKER, Property Officer; A. MORRIS, Ser- geant, Property Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-756-2) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 29, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6465
ARTHUR WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CAPTAIN GOODY, Supervisor; CORRECTIONAL OFFI-
CER BAKER, Property Officer; A. MORRIS, Ser-
geant, Property Manager,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-00-756-2)
Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 29, 2001
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Williams appeals the district court’s order denying
reconsideration of its order dismissing his claim filed under 42
U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) as frivolous. A motion
for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) does not bring up for review
the merits of the underlying substantive judgment, nor does it toll
the period for filing an appeal of the underlying judgment. See
Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,
434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7,
264-65, 268-69 (1978).
Because Williams did not file his Rule 60(b) motion within ten
days of the district court’s order dismissing his § 1983 complaint,
entered on October 24, 2000, the time period for filing his appeal
of that order was not tolled. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). The
time limit for filing an appeal in this case was thirty days. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Therefore, Williams’ appeal, filed on
March 20, 2001, is only timely as to the district court’s denial of
his subsequent motion for reconsideration on March 14, 2001.* This
court reviews a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discre-
tion. See NOW v. Operation Rescue,
47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir.
1995).
*
We note that Williams’ notice of appeal does not mention the
underlying order, but only the court’s order denying reconsid-
eration. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B).
2
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court’s denial of Williams’ motion for reconsideration did not con-
stitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the rea-
soning of the district court. 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
3