Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07476/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07476-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leroy Cartlege
Appellee
James T. Dickerson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7476

JAMES T. DICKERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEROY CARTLEGE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (9:14-cv-01577-TLW)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James T. Dickerson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7476 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

James T. Dickerson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing 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 

June 8, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on September 16, 

2015.∗ Because Dickerson failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

 ∗ This is the date that the notice of appeal was delivered 

to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. 

4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

Appeal: 15-7476 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7476 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 3 of 3