UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6074
LINART RANDOLPH,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
MCKEITHER BODISON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(3:10-cv-00162-RBH)
Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Linart Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Linart Randolph seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing 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 December 10, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on
January 12, 2011. * Because Randolph 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
*
The envelope in which the notice of appeal was mailed
indicates it was received by the prison mailroom on January 12,
2011, and the notice is considered filed on that date. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). The notice
of appeal indicates Randolph signed it on January 11, 2011,
which was also after the thirty day appeal period expired.
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3