James Dickerson v. Leroy Cartlege , 627 F. App'x 199 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7476
JAMES T. DICKERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (9:14-cv-01577-TLW)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James T. Dickerson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James T. Dickerson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing 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
June 8, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on September 16,
2015. ∗ Because Dickerson 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials
∗This is the date that the notice of appeal was delivered
to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App.
4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3