CALLAHAN v. CLARKE (2018)

Antwan Wydell Callahan, a state prisoner, appeals the district court's order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Callahan's motion as an unauthorized successive habeas petition.^* See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005). Accordingly, although we grant Callahan leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court's order. See Callahan v. Clarke, No. 1:18-cv-00083-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va. Feb. 23, 2018). 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   A certificate of appealability is not required for us to determine this issue. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.