Court Opinion

ID: 4672450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-03-29 19:00:45.897041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:26.451436
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7890

JAMES R. SMITH,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN EDSEL TAYLOR,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:20-cv-01907-RMG)

Submitted: March 23, 2021                                         Decided: March 29, 2021

Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James R. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       James R. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate

judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Smith’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 November 9, 2020. Smith filed the notice of

appeal on December 17, 2020. * Because Smith 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 date appearing on the notice of
appeal is the earliest date Smith 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