Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06027/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06027-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Catherine Kendall
Appellee
Ikeisha Perry
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6027

IKEISHA PERRY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CATHERINE KENDALL, for Leath Correctional,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(4:11-cv-00434-DCN)

Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 28, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ikeisha Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6027 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/28/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ikeisha Perry seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing her 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 (2007).

The district court’s order was filed on October 14, 2011, 

and entered on the docket on October 17, 2011. The notice of 

appeal was filed on January 5, 2015. Because Perry 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: 15-6027 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/28/2015 Pg: 2 of 2