Case Name: Ted RADCLIFFE, Petitioner-Appellant v. William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-24
Citations: 616 F. App'x 181
Docket Number: No. 14-10884
Parties: Ted RADCLIFFE, Petitioner-Appellant v. William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 616
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
Ted RADCLIFFE, Petitioner-Appellant v. William STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-10884.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 24, 2015.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ted Radcliffe, Texas prisoner # 707962, requests a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's dismissal, as time-barred, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, which he filed to challenge his disciplinary conviction for threatening to escape. Radcliffe has also filed a motion for judicial notice.
"This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary." Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). "[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). Radcliffe's motion for an extension of time to file a COA motion was not "the 'functional equivalent' " of a notice of appeal. See Bailey v. Cain, 609 F.3d 763, 765-67 (5th Cir.2010); Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1). Because Radcliffe did not file a timely notice of appeal, his appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360.
COA DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.