Court Opinion

ID: 4389846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-04-23 19:00:20.567912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:50:45.748673
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-6007

TIMOTHY JEROME WARREN,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN CARTLEDGE,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (2:16-cv-01911-TLW)

Submitted: April 18, 2019                                         Decided: April 23, 2019

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Jerome Warren, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Timothy Jerome Warren seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge 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 (2007).

       The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 7, 2017. The

notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on December 14, 2018. * Because Warren 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 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