Nathan Luckett v. Leroy Cartledge ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6329
NATHAN LUCKETT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(6:15-cv-02239-MGL)
Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathan Luckett, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathan Luckett seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing as
untimely 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
January 19, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on February 22,
2016. * Because Luckett 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
*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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3