Donald Vaughan v. Commonwealth of Virginia

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Donald Vaughan v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6290 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6290

DONALD DOC VAUGHAN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00619-DJN-MRC)

Submitted: September 19, 2024 Decided: September 24, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Doc Vaughan, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Brooker, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6290 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Doc Vaughan, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing

Vaughan’s

28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition as untimely. 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 December 12, 2022, and the appeal period

expired on January 23, 2023. Vaughan filed the notice of appeal on March 19, 2024. *

Because Vaughan 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 in 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 Vaughan 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

Reference

Status
Unpublished