Case ID: f-appx_574/html/0277-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christopher ODOM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-6169.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 29, 2014.
    Decided: June 3, 2014.
    Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se. Albert Richard Pierce, Jr., Howser, Newman & Besley, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    
      Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher A. Odom seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and dismissing Odom’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T] he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on June 26, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on January 13, 2014. Because Odom failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED.