Clifton Lyles v. Cecilia Reynolds, No. 21-7291 (4th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-7291 CLIFTON DONELL LYLES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN CECILIA REYNOLDS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (4:14-cv-01063-TMC) Submitted: January 20, 2022 Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton Donell Lyles, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: January 25, 2022 PER CURIAM: Clifton Donell Lyles appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. * Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Lyles’ Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2254 petition over which it lacked jurisdiction because his failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Lyles’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Lyles’ claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. 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 A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive habeas petition. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015). * 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.