USCA4 Appeal: 24-6831 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6831

GEORGE PORTERFIELD, a/k/a Larry Brown,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LARRY CARTLEDGE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:16-cv-03454-MGL)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Porterfield, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6831 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

George Porterfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate

judge’s recommendation, granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss, dismissing

Porterfield’s

petition with prejudice, and denying a certificate of

appealability. 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,

(2007).

The district court entered its order on November 13, 2017, and the appeal period

expired on January 12, 2018. 1 Porterfield filed the notice of appeal on August 16, 2024.2

Because Porterfield failed to file a timely notice of appeal after receiving an extension of

the appeal period, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

1 The district court granted Porterfield an extension of time under Rule 4(a)(5) to file his notice of appeal. 2 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Porterfield could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack,

(1988).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6831 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

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

3