Thurman Van Lilly v. Harvey Knox

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6822
THURMAN VAN LILLY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HARVEY KNOX; JOHN ALLEN; TRACY LEWIS; LANE CRIBB; MATTHEW J.
MODICA; LINDA CANTEEN; TARA S. TAGGART,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
ISAAC PYATT,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.,
District Judge. (2:06-cv-01138-JFA)
Submitted: February 3, 2009 Decided: February 25, 2009
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thurman Van Lilly, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki,
WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Thurman Van Lilly appeals the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of
the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2000) complaint.* We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Lilly v. Knox, No. 2:06-cv-01138-JFA
(D.S.C. Apr. 23, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
* Although Lilly’s notice of appeal refers to the district
court’s original judgment, the order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) motion, and the order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion, it is timely only as to the denial of Rule 60(b) relief.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

-- 2 of 2 --