UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6968
LESTER JON RUSTON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER; DIRECTOR CHARLES E.
SAMUELS,
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, 277 (4th Cir. 2008). Our review is limited to the
propriety of Rule 60(b) relief and does not extend to the
underlying judgment. Id. A movant seeking relief from a
judgment under Rule 60(b) must make a threshold showing 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). If this showing
is made, the movant also must demonstrate one of the six
enumerated grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). 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 not make the
requisite showing for relief under Rule 60(b). 2 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. 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
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