Court Opinion

ID: 3218317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-29 19:01:13.224926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:45.770217
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 16-6329

NATHAN LUCKETT,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE,

                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.   Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(6:15-cv-02239-MGL)

Submitted:   June 23, 2016                  Decided:   June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathan Luckett, Appellant Pro Se.    Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (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

      *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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3