Eugene Green v. A. Padula ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-6969
    EUGENE DWAYNE GREEN, a/k/a Eugene D. Green,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    A. J. PADULA, Warden, Lee Correctional Institution,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.     G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (8:08-cv-00713-GRA)
    Submitted:   October 22, 2013             Decided:   October 25, 2013
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Eugene Dwayne Green, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Eugene   Dwayne   Green        seeks   to   appeal    the    district
    court’s     order    accepting    the   recommendation        of     the    magistrate
    judge and dismissing 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 June 4, 2009.           The notice of appeal was filed on May 31,
    2013. *    Because Green 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
    *
    See Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
    , 270 (1988).
    2
    materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-6969

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Thacker

Filed Date: 10/25/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024