UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6056
SAMUEL STOKES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
SCDC,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:11-cv-02690-JFA)
Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Stokes, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Stokes seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and denying 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). A Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) motion will toll the notice period only if the petitioner
filed the motion within twenty-eight days after entry of the
district court’s final order. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv).
“[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 entered its order on the docket on
August 17, 2012. Stokes filed his notice of appeal, at the
earliest, on January 8, 2013. Stokes’ untimely Rule 59(e)
motion, filed in October 2012, did not toll the appeal period.
Because Stokes 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
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3