Case ID: f-appx_631/html/0196-01.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

Clorey Eugene FRANCE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 15-7346.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 26, 2016.
    Decided: Feb. 3, 2016.
    Clorey Eugene France, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Clorey Eugene France seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 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 30 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 July 6, 2015. The notice of appeal, dated. August 6, 2015, was filed on August 11, 2015. Because France failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 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,. 
      
      . For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mail- ' ing to the court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
     
      
      
        , While France filed a timely post-judgment motion, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), he failed to comply with the district court's order to file a corrected motion with a signature. Accordingly, the motion was stricken.