Case Name: Nathan LUCKETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-29
Citations: 653 F. App'x 222
Docket Number: No. 16-6329
Parties: Nathan LUCKETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 222–222

Head Matter:
Nathan LUCKETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy CARTLEDGE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6329
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2016
Decided: June 29, 2016
Nathan Luckett, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathan Luckett seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing as untimely 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on January 19, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on February 22, 2016. Because Luckett 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 before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
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, 108 S.Ct 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).