US v. Lester Fletcher
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:05-cr-00179-PJM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Lester Fletcher. [14-7540]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
LESTER FLETCHER, a/k/a Big Mann,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
August 20, 2015
September 4, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
Lester Fletcher, Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Salem, Gina Simms,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Lester Fletcher appeals the district court’s margin orders
denying relief on his self-styled “motion for reconsideration
denying his motion to recuse.
We find that Fletcher’s motion to
recuse did not establish judicial bias by the district court
and, thus, we affirm the district court’s order.
2015; entered Aug. 15, 2015).
In the reconsideration motion, * Fletcher asked the district
court to reconsider its previous order denying his motion to
dismiss as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
court exhibited bias against him when it granted the Government
additional time to respond to the motion to dismiss and failed
to notify Fletcher of the extension of time.
dismissed by the district court and that, because his motion to
dismiss challenged the district court’s jurisdiction over him,
the district court erroneously construed the motion to dismiss
as a successive habeas motion.
Because Fletcher’s motion was filed more than 28 days
after the court’s order, it is properly construed as a Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion, rather than a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Pg: 3 of 4
Rule 60(b) claim (i.e., district court bias in the handling of
his motion to dismiss), as well as a successive habeas claim
We have made clear that “[w]hen [a] motion
applications as well as claims cognizable under Rule 60(b), the
district court should afford the applicant an opportunity to
elect between deleting the improper claims or having the entire
motion treated as a successive application.”
United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003).
Fletcher was not
given that opportunity here.
proper 60(b) claim is meritless and the district court already
See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.
Fletcher’s reconsideration motion, we affirm the order, in part.
Pg: 4 of 4
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
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?