Court Opinion

ID: 9946004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:01:09.417355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:21.332114
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7161      Doc: 5         Filed: 02/27/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7161

        JOHN EDWARD BUTLER,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        ACTING SUPERINTENDENT STANLEY,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-hc-02098-D)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                  Decided: February 27, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        John Edward Butler, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7161         Doc: 5      Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               John Edward Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for

        recusal. 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 September 6, 2023. Butler filed the notice of

        appeal on November 13, 2023. * Because Butler 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 prison mail date-stamp
        appearing on the envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date Butler 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