UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7106
JOHN HENRY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(4:13-cv-01868-MGL)
Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 22, 2014
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Henry seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as barred by the
statute of limitations. 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 June 17, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on July 21,
2014. * Because Henry failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal and deny as moot Henry’s motion for a
certificate of appealability. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
*
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,
276 (1988).
2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3