Billy Courtright v. Warden Young ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 22-7204      Doc: 9         Filed: 03/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22-7204
    BILLY JACK COURTRIGHT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN YOUNG,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
    Beckley. Frank W. Volk, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00353)
    Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 24, 2023
    Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Billy Jack Courtright, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 22-7204         Doc: 9      Filed: 03/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Billy Jack Courtright, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
    because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
    When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice
    of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final
    judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 entered its order on July 5, 2022. Courtright filed the notice of
    appeal on October 12, 2022. * Because Courtright 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    *
    For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
    appeal is the earliest date Courtright could have delivered the notice to prison officials for
    mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
    , 276 (1988).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-7204

Filed Date: 3/24/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/25/2023