Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07430/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07430-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7430

ANDREW DRAYTON, JR.,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

STATE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard M. Gergel, District 

Judge. (0:14-cv-01573-RMG)

Submitted: January 8, 2015 Decided: January 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Drayton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7430 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Drayton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition 

without prejudice. 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 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on July 7, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on 

September 25, 2014. Because Drayton failed to file a timely 

notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the 

appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Drayton’s motion 

to expedite as moot and deny his 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.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7430 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 2