Opinion
22-7201
04-28-2023
EDWARD GERMAINE SAUNDERS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Edward Germaine Saunders, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: April 25, 2023
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)
Edward Germaine Saunders, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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).