Williams v. Jackson

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6765

TIMOTHY KINNARD WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BUTCH JACKSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-00869-TDS-PTS)

Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 3, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Kinnard Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Timothy Kinnard Williams seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion for clarification, arising from

the court’s adoption of the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation and dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 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 November 24, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on May 20,

2010. Because Williams 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 in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

2