Court Opinion

ID: 2743817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-10-20 19:01:14.245038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:12.015040
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 14-6880

ANTHONY ANDERSON,

                        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. (2:13-cv-00223-AWA-LRL)

Submitted:   October 16, 2014              Decided:   October 20, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Anthony Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying    relief       on   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 24, 2014.           The notice of appeal was filed on May 6,

2014. *   Because Anderson 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,
276 (1988).

                                           2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3