Anthony Anderson v. Harold Clarke

585 F. App'x 14
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 20, 2014
Docket14-6880
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 585 F. App'x 14 (Anthony Anderson v. Harold Clarke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anthony Anderson v. Harold Clarke, 585 F. App'x 14 (4th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 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 thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. RApp. 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 24, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on May 6, 2014. * Because Anderson 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 contentions are adequately presented in the *15 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 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, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

(PC) Nieves v. Allison
E.D. California, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
585 F. App'x 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-anderson-v-harold-clarke-ca4-2014.