Andrew Holston v. ALBERT SUBERS, Judge

CPS-169 UNREPORTED - NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-4275
________________
ANDREW HOLSTON,
Appellant
v.
ALBERT SUBERS, Judge; THEODORE
Q. THOMPSON, Esquire
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-00694)
District Judge: Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 10, 2005
BEFORE: ALITO, McKEE and AMBRO, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed May 10, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Andrew Holston appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his “Petition to

-- 1 of 3 --

Because the “Application” was filed more than ten days after entry of the orders1
granting defendants’ motions to dismiss, it did not toll the time to appeal those orders.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4).
2
Review.” We will affirm the order pursuant to I.O.P. 10.6, as the appeal presents no
substantial question.
Holston filed a complaint in February 2004, which he later amended, seeking
declaratory relief and damages. The complaint alleged that Theodore Thompson,
Holston’s former attorney in a condemnation proceeding, committed perjury in state court
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1621 when he denied receiving a malpractice petition. Holston
also asserted that Senior Judge Albert R. Subers, of the Montgomery County Court of
Common Pleas, had obstructed justice by dismissing Holston’s malpractice action. The
District Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Holston then filed documents,
relating to each defendant, entitled “Application for Expediated [sic] Consideration,”
which the District Court construed as motions for reconsideration and denied as untimely
and lacking merit. Shortly thereafter, Holston filed a document entitled “Petition Said1
Court to Review the Case.” The District Court dismissed his “Petition to Review,” and
Holston filed this appeal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the District
Court’s dismissal of the “Petition to Review” is plenary. See Universal Minerals, Inc. v.
C.A. Hughes & Co., 669 F.2d 98, 103 (3d Cir. 1981). The District Court dismissed the
“Petition to Review” after concluding that there was no such cause of action recognized

-- 2 of 3 --

in law or equity. We agree. Holston does not cite any law that would support his
“Petition to Review.” He merely repeats the allegations provided in his “Application for
Expediated [sic] Consideration,” which the District Court had previously denied. Even if
the District Court had construed the “Petition to Review” as a motion to reconsider the
denial of the “Application,” the motion would have been properly denied as untimely.
The “Petition to Review” does not include any language to suggest it is a motion for
reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or a motion for relief from judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), or provide any argument to support such a motion.
Finally, we note that, in his “Petition to Review,” Holston also seeks Judge
Buckwalter’s recusal and takes issue with a decision issued by a panel of this Court. As
there were no proceedings before Judge Buckwalter at the time the “Petition to Review”
was filed, there was no basis for his recusal. Review of decisions issued by this Court is
not obtained by filing a petition in the District Court.
Having concluded the appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily
affirm the District Court’s order.

-- 3 of 3 --