UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6825
GREGORY LYNN ROSS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL BALL,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld,
Magistrate Judge. (1:12-cv-00292-LPA-LPA)
Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Lynn Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Lynn Ross seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s order 1 dismissing as untimely 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
final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A), unless the magistrate judge 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 magistrate judge entered judgment on February 27,
2013. Ross filed a motion for a certificate of appealability on
May 7, 2013. 2 Because Ross 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
1
Both parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate
judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
2
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
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3