Larry Stubbs v. Brad Perritt

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UNPUBLISHED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, Chief District Judge. (5:15-hc-02239-BO)

Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 9, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 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 February 12, 2018. Stubbs

filed his notice of appeal on March 29, 2018, * which was after the 30-day appeal period

expired but within the 30-day excusable neglect period. On limited remand, the district

court found that Stubbs failed to establish good cause or excusable neglect to justify

filing the untimely notice, and thus denied his motion for an extension of the appeal

period.

Because Stubbs’ notice of appeal was untimely filed, 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 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).