UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6558
RAYMOND EDMONDS, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN CECILIA REYNOLDS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:15-cv-01041-PMD)
Submitted: September 22, 2016 Decided: October 24, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Edmonds, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown,
Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Edmonds, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 30 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
March 14, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on April 14,
2016. * Because Edmonds failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
deny the motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave
to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3