USCA4 Appeal: 24-6306 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/08/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6306

BRIAN C. MORGAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (2:13-cv-20212)

Submitted: October 18, 2024 Decided: November 8, 2024

Before RICHARDSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian C. Morgan, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea Nease Proper, Michael Ray Williams, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6306 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/08/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Brian C. Morgan appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying Morgan’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of its order dismissing Morgan’s prior Rule 60(b) motions as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. ∗ We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Justus v. Clarke, 78 F.4th 97, 104 (4th Cir. 2023) (reviewing denial of Rule 60(b) relief for abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1096 (2024).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Morgan v. Ballard, No. 2:13-cv-20212 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 22, 2024). We deny Morgan’s motion 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

∗ Because a certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive habeas petition, United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015), we likewise conclude that no certificate of appealability is required to appeal the district court’s order denying reconsideration of that decision.