Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gayle v. Johnson, 07-7751 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-7751 Visitors: 42
Filed: Apr. 28, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7751 ST. AUBYN SEBASTIAN GAYLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. No. 08-6036 ST. AUBYN SEBASTIAN GAYLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7751 ST. AUBYN SEBASTIAN GAYLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. No. 08-6036 ST. AUBYN SEBASTIAN GAYLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cv-00681-REP) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 28, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. St. Aubyn Sebastian Gayle, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: St. Aubyn Sebastian Gayle appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to toll the limitation period for filing a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and his motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Gayle v. Johnson, No. 3:05-cv-00681-REP (E.D. Va. Nov. 15, 2007 & Dec. 18, 2007). Additionally, we deny Gayle’s motion for production of documents.* 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 * Though Gayle has filed a motion for production of documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the Act is not applicable to federal courts. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1)(B), 552(f)(1) (2000). - 3 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer