Court Opinion

ID: 5128439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-11-22 20:01:38.483596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:31.287658
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-7101

DONQUAVIOUS DASHON DAVIS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN OF PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (5:20-cv-02674-RMG)

Submitted: November 18, 2021                                Decided: November 22, 2021

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donquavious DaShon Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Donquavious DaShon Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Davis’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was

not timely filed.

       In civil cases, parties have 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 entered its order on March 18, 2021. Davis filed the notice of

appeal on July 9, 2021. * Because Davis 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED

       *
         For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the postmark date appearing on the
envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date Davis could have delivered the
notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

                                              2