Burl Anderson Howell v. US, No. 16-2184 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2184 BURL ANDERSON HOWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:14-cv-00898-F) Submitted: January 5, 2017 Decided: January 9, 2017 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Burl Anderson Howell, Appellant Pro Se. John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney, Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Burl Anderson Howell appeals the district court’s September 28, 2016 order denying his post-judgment motion as moot. He also seeks to appeal the district court’s November 24, 2015 and February 29, 2016 orders dismissing his civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying reconsideration. Howell previously appealed, and we previously affirmed, the district court’s November 24, 2015 and February 29, 2016 orders. See Howell v. United States, No. 16-1220, 2016 WL 4363146 (4th Cir. Aug. 16, 2016). To the extent that Howell again seeks to appeal these or any earlier orders of the district court, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. As for the district court’s September 28, 2016 order denying his post-judgment motion as moot, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Howell’s pending motion and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Howell v. United States, No. 5:14-cv-00898-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2016). 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. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 2

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.