Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07346/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07346-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clorey Eugene France
Appellant
State of North Carolina
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7346

CLOREY EUGENE FRANCE,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00250-JAB-LPA)

Submitted: January 26, 2016 Decided: February 3, 2016

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clorey Eugene France, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb, 

Assistant Attorney General, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7346 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/03/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Clorey Eugene France 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 

July 6, 2015. The notice of appeal, dated August 6, 2015, was 

filed on August 11, 2015.1 Because France failed to file a 

timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of 

the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.2 We dispense with oral 

 1 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).

2 While France filed a timely post-judgment motion, see Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), he failed to comply with the district 

(Continued)

Appeal: 15-7346 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/03/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

 

court’s order to file a corrected motion with a signature. 

Accordingly, the motion was stricken.

Appeal: 15-7346 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/03/2016 Pg: 3 of 3