UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6563
KEVIN PITTS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:11-cv-02093-JFA)
Submitted: August 13, 2013 Decided: August 27, 2013
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Pitts, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, Donald John
Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Pitts seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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. 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 September 11, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on
April 6, 2013. * Because Pitts failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
*
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).
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3