William Shanklin v. Kenneth Seal
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:07-cv-00319-MHL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998759322]. Mailed to: William Shanklin. [11-6942]
Appeal: 11-6942
Document: 33
Date Filed: 01/06/2012
Page: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6942
WILLIAM SHANKLIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KENNETH RANDALL SEALS, Major, Police Officer, individually
and in official capacity; STEVEN HATFIELD, Corporal,
Detective, Police Officer, individually and in official
capacity; TRACI BRYLEWSKI, Sergeant, Detective, Police
Officer, individually and in official capacity; BRIAN
SNYDER, Detective, Police Officer, individually and in
official capacity; JASON K. PRICE, Corporal, Detective,
Police Officer, individually and in official capacity; MARK
D.
BEAVERS,
Captain,
Detective,
Police
Officer,
individually and in official capacity; MICHAEL FOLSOM,
Crime Analyst, Master Forensic Specialist, individually and
in official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:07-cv-00319-MHL)
Submitted:
December 20, 2011
Decided:
January 6, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Appeal: 11-6942
Document: 33
Date Filed: 01/06/2012
Page: 2 of 5
William Shanklin, Appellant Pro Se.
William Franklin Devine,
WILLIAMS MULLEN, Norfolk, Virginia; Lauren Wheeling, WILLIAMS
MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 11-6942
Document: 33
Date Filed: 01/06/2012
Page: 3 of 5
PER CURIAM:
William Shanklin, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal
the
district
(2006)
court’s
complaint,
order
the
dismissing
district
his
court’s
42
U.S.C.
orders
§ 1983
denying
his
motions for appointment of counsel, and the district court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief. 1
We
dismiss in part and affirm in part.
As
jurisdiction
a
threshold
Shanklin’s
matter,
appeal
of
dismissing his § 1983 complaint.
we
dismiss
the
district
for
lack
court’s
of
order
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. P.
4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(6).
“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil
case is a jurisdictional requirement.”
Bowles v. Russell, 551
U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The
district
court’s
order
dismissing
the
was entered on the docket sheet on July 27, 2010.
complaint
Shanklin’s
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) motions were not filed within
twenty-eight days after entry of the July 27, 2010 judgment and
1
By consent of the parties and designation of the district
court, all proceedings were conducted before a magistrate judge.
3
Appeal: 11-6942
Document: 33
Date Filed: 01/06/2012
Page: 4 of 5
therefore did not toll the appeal period.
See Fed. R. Civ. P.
52(b), 59(e); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A).
Shanklin’s notice of
appeal was filed on July 11, 2011. 2
Because Shanklin failed to
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss his appeal of the
district court’s July 27, 2010 order.
Shanklin’s untimely appeal of the order dismissing the
complaint
orders
precludes
refusing
Simmons,
dismiss
also
814
for
to
F.2d
lack
our
appoint
962,
of
review
of
Shanklin
967
(4th
jurisdiction
the
district
counsel.
Cir.
his
See
1987).
appeal
Miller
We
of
court’s
v.
therefore
the
district
court’s orders denying appointment of counsel.
Turning to the merits of Shanklin’s remaining claim,
we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s order
denying Shanklin’s Rule 60(b) motion.
requisite
failed
to
convincing
prevented
showing
for
relief
“prove
the
misconduct
evidence
him
from
and
fully
under
Shanklin has not made the
Rule
60(b)(3),
complained
of
demonstrate
and
fairly
that
by
such
presenting
as
he
has
clear
and
misconduct
his
claims.”
McLawhorn v. John W. Daniel & Co., 924 F.2d 535, 538 (4th Cir.
2
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).
4
Appeal: 11-6942
Document: 33
Date Filed: 01/06/2012
Page: 5 of 5
1991) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Shanklin also has
failed to demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient
to justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
See Reid v. Angelone,
369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly,
district
court’s
we
orders
dismiss
denying
Shanklin’s
appeal
appointment
of
of
the
counsel
and
dismissing his complaint, and we affirm the district court’s
order denying Shanklin’s Rule 60(b) motion.
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
We dispense with
legal
contentions
before
the
court
are
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?