Opinion
No. 18-7540
03-01-2019
JOSEPH WITCHARD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BRYAN M. ANTONELLI, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
Joseph Witchard, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:18-cv-01236-HMH) Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Witchard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Joseph Witchard, a federal prisoner, appeals both the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion seeking relief from the dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition and the court's text order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 220 (4th Cir. 2014) (reviewing denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) relief for abuse of discretion); Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d 410, 412 (4th Cir. 2005) (reviewing denial of Rule 60(b)(4) motion de novo). Witchard's postjudgment motions failed to establish any valid basis for relief from the underlying orders they sought to challenge. See United States v. Welsh, 879 F.3d 530, 533-34 (4th Cir. 2018) (discussing grounds for Rule 60(b)(4) relief), petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Oct. 16, 2018) (No. 18-6374); Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (discussing grounds for Rule 59(e) relief). Nor did they call into question the district court's dispositive ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Witchard's § 2241 petition, which this court previously affirmed. See Witchard v. Antonelli, 736 F. App'x 54 (4th Cir. 2018) (No. 18-6785), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2019 WL 113419 (U.S. Jan. 7, 2019) (No. 18-6720).
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court's orders. 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