Timothy Warren v. Warden Cartledge
Timothy Warren v. Warden Cartledge
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6007
TIMOTHY JEROME WARREN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (2:16-cv-01911-TLW)
Submitted: April 18, 2019 Decided: April 23, 2019
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Jerome Warren, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Timothy Jerome Warren seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely 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 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’s order was entered on the docket on September 7, 2017. The
notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on December 14, 2018. * Because Warren 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 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(1988).
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished