Deangelo Wooden v. Leroy Cartledge ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7367
DEANGELO WOODEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.,
District Judge. (2:11-cv-00981-JFA)
Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deangelo Wooden, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Deangelo Wooden seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 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 August 24, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on August
21, 2013. * Because Wooden 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
*
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
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3