Lester Ruston v. Eric Holder, No. 13-6968 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6968 LESTER JON RUSTON, Petitioner Appellant, v. U.S. ATTORNEY SAMUELS, GENERAL ERIC HOLDER; DIRECTOR CHARLES E. Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:12-hc-02090-BO) Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lester Jon Ruston, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lester Jon Ruston appeals the district court s order denying Ruston s motion to reconsider, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, its order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. 1 We affirm. We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, Cir. 277 (4th propriety of underlying judgment Rule 60(b) judgment. under 2008). Rule Our relief Id. 60(b) review and is limited to the not extend to the A movant seeking relief from must make does a threshold showing a 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). is made, the movant also must demonstrate If this showing one enumerated grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). of the six See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co., 116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1997); see also Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 500-01 (4th 1 To the extent Ruston seeks to appeal the underlying judgment denying Ruston s § 2241 petition, we lack jurisdiction to address this order, as his notice of appeal is timely only as to the order denying Rule 60(b) relief. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (providing sixty-day appeal period), 4(a)(4)(A)(vi) (addressing tolling pending disposition of Rule 60(b) motion). 2 Cir. 2011) (en banc) (addressing requirements for relief under Rule 60(b)(6)). We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion, as we conclude that Ruston did requisite showing for relief under Rule 60(b). 2 not make the Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court s order. We deny Ruston s motions to expand the record on appeal, for an injunction, and for appointment of counsel. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 2 Additionally, while Ruston raises a claim of judicial bias in his informal brief, we find nothing in the record to support these allegations. Rather, Ruston s assertions appear to be based on his disagreement with the substantive rulings made by the district court. See Shaw v. Martin, 733 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1984) ( Alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case. ). 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.
