Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07899/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07899-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis Bush
Appellee
Antwan Zeigler
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7899

ANTWAN ZEIGLER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DENNIS BUSH,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

(9:14-cv-01162-JMC)

Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: April 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antwan Zeigler, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-7899 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Antwan Zeigler seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 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

September 22, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on November 

18, 2015.* Because Zeigler 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 

 * 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 mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988).

Appeal: 15-7899 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7899 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3