Opinion
No. 20-1186
06-22-2020
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH ZIEGLER, Defendant - Appellant.
Joseph R. Ziegler, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:19-cv-00325) Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph R. Ziegler, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Joseph Ziegler appeals the denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for postjudgment relief, filed after the district court rejected Ziegler's attempt to remove to federal court Ziegler's state court misdemeanor prosecution and remanded the matter to the Magistrate Court for Clay County, West Virginia. We review the district court's order denying Rule 60(b) relief for an abuse of discretion. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. AMH Roman Two NC, LLC, 859 F.3d 295, 299 (4th Cir. 2017). On appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, "we do not review the merits of the underlying order but rather only whether the movant satisfied the requirements for Rule 60(b)." Id. It is well established in this circuit that, "[t]o obtain relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b), a moving party must first show (1) that the motion is timely, (2) that he has a meritorious claim or defense, and (3) that the opposing party will not suffer unfair prejudice if the judgment is set aside." United States v. Welsh, 879 F.3d 530, 533 (4th Cir. 2018). Once a movant satisfies this threshold showing, he must then demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under one of the six subsections of Rule 60(b). Id.
We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ziegler's Rule 60(b) motion. We therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. State of W. Va. v. Ziegler, No. 2:19-cv-00325 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 28, 2020). We deny as unnecessary Ziegler's motion for a certificate of appealability. 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