Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06804/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06804-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph McFadden
Appellee
Robert A. Young
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6804

ROBERT A. YOUNG,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(9:15-cv-00090-TMC)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6804 Doc: 6 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert A. Young 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 

January 19, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on June 11, 

2016.* Because Young 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 purposes 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: 16-6804 Doc: 6 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6804 Doc: 6 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 3 of 3