Cogdill v. Beasley

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7400 DONALD M. COGDILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID M. BEASLEY, Governor of South Carolina; MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner of SCDC; SOUTH CAROLINA PROBATION AND PAROLE BOARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-96-3270-6) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 19, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald M. Cogdill, Appellant Pro Se. Carl Norman Lundberg, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES, Columbia, South Carolina; Larry Cleveland Batson, Robert Eric Petersen, William Ansel Collins, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donald M. Cogdill appeals from the district court’s order de- nying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion to reconsider the order dis- missing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) action. Although Cogdill did not timely receive the district court’s September 1997 order, the district court was without authority to reopen the appeal period as to that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Fur- ther, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration because the change from annual to biannual parole consideration did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See California Dep’t of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 505-14 (1995); Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying the motion for reconsideration. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2