US v. Anton Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-hc-02045-BO. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999917755]. Mailed to: Anton Johnson. [16-6481]

Appeal: 16-6481

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6481

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
ANTON JOHNSON,
Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-hc-02045-BO)

Submitted:

August 22, 2016

Decided:

August 26, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anton Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Michael
Bredenberg, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,
North Carolina, Michael Lockridge, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6481

Doc: 10

Filed: 08/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Anton Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration
of his civil commitment order.
judgment

under

Rule

60(b)

A movant seeking relief from a

must

make

a

threshold

showing

of

“timeliness, a meritorious defense, a lack of unfair prejudice
to the opposing party, and exceptional circumstances.”

Dowell

v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th
Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).
must

be

60(c)(1).

made

within

“a

reasonable

time.”

Fed.

A Rule 60(b)
R.

Civ.

P.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in finding that Johnson’s Rule 60(b) motion, filed
more than three years after entry of the civil commitment order,
was untimely.

See McLawhorn v. John W. Daniel & Co., 924 F.2d

535,

Cir.

538

(4th

1991)

(per

curiam)

(finding

no

abuse

of

discretion where district court denied as untimely Rule 60(b)
motion filed only three or four months after original judgment).
Accordingly, we affirm.

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