UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6611
TERRENCE DIMINGO TERRY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MR. LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (6:10-cv-02006-BHH)
Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terrence Dimingo Terry, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Terrence Dimingo Terry seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
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 13, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on April 14,
2016. * Because Terry 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
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
*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
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3