Jacob Goodwin v. Chadwick Dotson ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 24-6582      Doc: 10         Filed: 08/27/2024    Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 24-6582
    JACOB SCOTT GOODWIN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    CHADWICK DOTSON, Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
    Roanoke. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (7:22-cv-00517-EKD-JCH)
    Submitted: August 22, 2024                                        Decided: August 27, 2024
    Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jacob Scott Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se. Kelly Lynn Sturman, Assistant Attorney General,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 24-6582         Doc: 10      Filed: 08/27/2024      Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Jacob Scott Goodwin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
    of appeal was not timely filed.
    In civil cases, parties have 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 entered its order on March 4, 2024, and the appeal period expired
    on April 3, 2024. Goodwin filed the notice of appeal on April 26, 2024. * Because Goodwin
    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 Goodwin 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: 24-6582

Filed Date: 8/27/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/28/2024