Roderick Oaks v. Harold Clark , 589 F. App'x 228 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7601
RODERICK DEMEATRICE OAKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARK, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:13-cv-00674-RAJ-TEM)
Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roderick Demeatrice Oaks, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roderick Demeatrice Oaks seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as time-barred.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the
notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty 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 4, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on October
28, 2014. ∗ Because Oaks 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
∗
Because Oaks incorrectly mailed the notice of appeal to a
state court, which is under no obligation to forward the notice
to the proper district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2012), Oaks
does not benefit from the prison mailbox rule.
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3