Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06611/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06611-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6611

ROBERT A. LAROCHE,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

DAVID DUNLAP, MCI Warden,

 Respondent – Appellee,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF,

 Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. 

(4:14-cv-00222-JMC)

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert A. LaRoche, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6611 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert A. LaRoche 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 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 

23, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on April 23, 2015, one 

day late. Because LaRoche 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

Appeal: 15-6611 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 2