Larry Stubbs v. Brad Perritt
This text of Larry Stubbs v. Brad Perritt (Larry Stubbs v. Brad Perritt) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6356
LARRY CONNELL STUBBS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRAD PERRITT, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02239-BO)
Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: July 24, 2018
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Connell Stubbs, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Larry Stubbs seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2012) petition. Parties to a civil action 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).
However, the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party moves
for an extension of the appeal period within 30 days after the expiration of the original
appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause to warrant an extension.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5); see Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900-01 (4th Cir.
1989). “[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 final judgment was entered on the docket on February 12, 2018.
Stubbs’ notice of appeal was dated March 29, 2018, and filed April 4, 2018—after
expiration of the 30-day appeal period but within the excusable neglect period. Because
Stubbs’ notice of appeal offered some excuse for his untimeliness and included a request
to consider the notice of appeal as timely, we construe it as a request for an extension of
time accompanying his notice of appeal. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited
purpose of allowing the district court to determine whether the time for filing a notice of
appeal should be extended under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). The record, as supplemented,
will then be returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Larry Stubbs v. Brad Perritt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larry-stubbs-v-brad-perritt-ca4-2018.