Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
23-6357•William Herbert McCladdie v. Warden of Evans Correctional Institution
23-6357Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit01.03.2024
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6357
WILLIAM HERBERT MCCLADDIE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (6:22-cv-01192-RMG)
Submitted: February 27, 2024, Decided: February 29, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Herbert McCladdie, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
After the district court denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, William Herbert
McCladdie filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of his claims. The
district court construed this motion as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. McCladdie then filed another motion
contesting his conviction. The district court construed this motion as seeking
reconsideration of the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and denied it on the merits.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that McCladdie’s motion for
reconsideration of the dismissal of his Rule 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction is also an
unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. See Bixby v. Stirling, 90 F.4th 140, 155
(4th Cir. 2024). As such, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider this motion, id.
at 154, and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), was required to dismiss it as an unauthorized,
successive § 2254 petition.
Because the district court denied, rather than dismissed the motion, we vacate the
district court’s order and remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss the motion
for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.