UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7167
DAVID CEASAR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
A. PADULA, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (0:10-cv-00486-MBS)
Submitted: November 17, 2011 Decided: November 23, 2011
Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
David Ceasar, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Ceasar seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely, and
its subsequent order denying his motion for an extension of time
to file a notice of appeal. We dismiss in part and affirm in
part.
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 dismissing Ceasar’s § 2254
petition was entered on the docket on February 10, 2011. Ceasar
filed his motion for an extension of time to file a notice of
appeal on August 19, 2011, and a notice of appeal was filed on
August 29, 2011. ∗ Because Ceasar failed to file a timely notice
of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
∗
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the motion and the notice of appeal is the earliest
date each document 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
period, we dismiss the appeal in part. The district court
correctly found that Ceasar did not satisfy the requirements for
extending or reopening the appeal period. Accordingly, we
affirm in part.
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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3