Court Opinion

ID: 4304558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-08-16 19:00:20.307828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:02:47.470325
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6593

ERIC D. MARCH,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN STEVENSON,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (5:15-cv-04633-JMC)

Submitted: August 9, 2018                                         Decided: August 16, 2018

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric D. March, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Eric D. March seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment and adopting

the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying 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 thirty 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 March 17, 2017. The notice

of appeal was filed on April 21, 2017. * Because March failed to file a timely notice of

appeal and the district court declined to extend 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, 270-71 (1988).

                                              2