William Deans v. Sheila Lindsey, No. 09-6681 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6681 WILLIAM DEANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHEILA LINDSEY, in official and private capacity;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 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. MICHAEL, Decided: Circuit Judges, August 27, 2009 and HAMILTON, Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. We 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 Browder v. Dir., Dep t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). (2007). Because Deans filed his appeal of the district court s original order Accord more than Bowles thirty v. days Russell, after 551 the U.S. entry judgment, we deny his appeal of this judgment as untimely. 205 of Fed. 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 court s Lindsey, No. dispense with denial of Deans s 3:07-cv-03247-CMC oral argument motion. (D.S.C. because Apr. the Deans See 1, 2009). facts and v. We 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.