US v. John Elinski
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999922510-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999939016-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00431-LMB-1,1:16-cv-00065-LMB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: John Richard Elinski. [16-7183]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
JOHN RICHARD ELINSKI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00431-LMB-1; 1:16-cv-00065-LMB)
January 26, 2017
February 1, 2017
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Richard Elinski, Appellant Pro Se.
Matthew John Gardner,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
John Richard Elinski seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Elinski’s original § 2255 motion was dismissed
by the district court on February 5, 2016, and his motion to
amend was filed on June 2, 2016, after this court had dismissed
the appeal of the original motion.
Because Elinski’s § 2255
motion was no longer pending before the district court, we find
no error by the district court in denying Elinski’s motion to
See United States v. Craycraft, 167 F.3d 451, 457 n.6
(8th Cir. 1999) (noting that the civil rules apply to § 2255
actions and that motions to amend are reviewed under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15 for an abuse of discretion).
Accordingly, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Elinski’s motion to
submit evidence in support of appeal and expand the record, deny
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?