Court Opinion

ID: 4699580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-06-29 19:02:20.371908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:51.699898
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-6409

UNIQUE DIOR LAWRENCE,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:20-cv-00471-AWA-RJK)

Submitted: June 24, 2021                                          Decided: June 29, 2021

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unique Dior Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Unique Dior Lawrence seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Lawrence’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition

without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 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 January 4, 2021. Lawrence filed the notice of

appeal on February 22, 2021. * Because Lawrence failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion for

appointment of counsel 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 Lawrence 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