William Deans v. Sheila Lindsey

Filing 920090827

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6681

WILLIAM DEANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHEILA LINDSEY, in official and private capacity; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS TREATMENT PROGRAM, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:07-cv-03247-CMC)

Submitted:

August 20, 2009

Decided:

August 27, 2009

Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.

MICHAEL,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Deans, Appellant Pro Se. Janet Carol Brooks, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: William Deans seeks to appeal the district court's

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, and denying Deans's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief. dismiss in part and affirm in part. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). is "mandatory and jurisdictional." This appeal period We

Browder v. Dir., Dep't of

Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (internal quotation marks and citation (2007). original omitted). Accord Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205

Because Deans filed his appeal of the district court's order more than thirty days after the entry of Fed.

judgment, we deny his appeal of this judgment as untimely. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

Deans's notice of appeal was timely as to the order denying Deans's Rule 60(b) motion. We find that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Deans's Rule 60(b) motion. See MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d

269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008) (reviewing the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion). 2 Therefore, we affirm the

district Lindsey, dispense

court's No. with

denial

of

Deans's

motion. Apr. the 1,

See

Deans

v. We

3:07-cv-03247-CMC oral argument

(D.S.C. because

2009). and

facts

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

3