Court Opinion

ID: 9959206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 21:00:41.981872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:33.703509
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6361      Doc: 6        Filed: 04/09/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6361

        BRYANT MATTHEW PARKER,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; THE
        ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00807-AJT-MSN)

        Submitted: March 27, 2024                                           Decided: April 9, 2024

        Before WYNN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Bryant Matthew Parker, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6361      Doc: 6         Filed: 04/09/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Bryant Matthew Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.

        Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior order dismissing Parker’s 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 May 31, 2022. Parker filed the notice of

        appeal on April 4, 2023. Because Parker failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain

        an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. *

               *
                  In his notice of appeal, Parker also designated for appeal the district court’s
        March 6, 2023, order directing the clerk to send Parker a copy of the order denying
        reconsideration. Although Parker’s notice of appeal was timely filed as to the March 6
        order, that order is neither a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 nor an appealable
        interlocutory or collateral order. See Amara v. Cigna Corp., 53 F.4th 241, 252
        (2d Cir. 2022) (explaining that “[m]inisterial [postjudgment] orders do not qualify as
        decisions under [28 U.S.C.] § 1291”), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2484 (2023). Accordingly,
        to the extent Parker seeks to appeal the March 6 order, we dismiss that portion of his appeal
        for lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. Doe, 962 F.3d 139, 143 (4th Cir. 2020)
        (“Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292, we have jurisdiction only over final orders and
        certain interlocutory and collateral orders.”).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6361         Doc: 6    Filed: 04/09/2024   Pg: 3 of 3

              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

                                                  3