UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7186
ZACK ZEMBLIEST SMITH, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN OWEN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:09-cv-02310-JFA)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zack Zembliest Smith, III, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince,
II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Zack Zembliest Smith, III, a federal prisoner, appeals
the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss in
part and transferring Smith’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 &
Supp. 2011) petition to the Western District of Louisiana.
Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order. We dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal
was not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a
party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty
days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or
order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 February 24, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on August
31, 2011. * Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of
*
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
(Continued)
2
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
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).
3