Gregory Green v. DONALD BECKWITH, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6157
GREGORY GREEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DONALD BECKWITH, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (0:17-cv-02784-RBH)
Submitted: January 3, 2023 Decided: January 12, 2023
Before DIAZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Green, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Green appeals the district court’s order denying in part and dismissing in
part his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which sought relief from the district court’s prior
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court construed Green’s Rule
60(b) motion as a mixed Rule 60(b) motion/§ 2254 petition, denied the Rule 60(b) part of
the motion as untimely and without merit, and dismissed the § 2254 petition part of the
motion as an unauthorized successive petition. We affirm.
We agree with the district court’s characterization of Green’s motion as a mixed
Rule 60(b) motion/§ 2254 petition. See Richardson v. Thomas, 930 F.3d 587, 595-96 (4th
Cir. 2019) (explaining distinction between true Rule 60(b) motion and Rule 60(b) motion
that is actually successive habeas petition). As to the district court’s denial of the Rule
60(b) part of Green’s motion, we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in ruling that Green’s motion was untimely.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1)
(requiring motion under Rule 60(b)(6) to be made “within a reasonable time”); Moses v.
Joyner, 815 F.3d 163, 167 (4th Cir. 2016) (holding that district court did not abuse its
discretion in finding untimely Rule 60(b)(6) motion “filed two-and-a-half years after the
[movant] knew or should have known the basis for his 60(b) claim”). We also conclude
1 Green does not require a certificate of appealability to appeal the partial denial of
his Rule 60(b) motion as untimely. United States v. Williams, __ F.4th __, __, No. 19-
7354, 2023 WL 18008, at *2 n.3 (4th Cir. Jan. 3, 2023).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
that the district court properly dismissed the § 2254 petition part of Green’s motion as an
unauthorized successive petition.2 Richardson, 930 F.3d at 596.
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
2 Green does not require a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s
partial dismissal of his Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition.
United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

-- 3 of 3 --