Melvin Dodson v. Warden, Deerfield Corr. Ctr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:10-cv-00019-jlk-mfu. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998602306] Mailed to: Melvin Cornnell Dodson. [11-6202]

Appeal: 11-6202

Document: 10

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6202

MELVIN CORNNELL DODSON,
Petitioner — Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, DEERFIELD CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Respondent — Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:10-cv-00019-jlk-mfu)

Submitted:

May 26, 2011

Decided:

June 1, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin Cornnell Dodson, Appellant Pro Se.
Kathleen Beatty
Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6202

Document: 10

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Melvin Cornnell Dodson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying as untimely 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).

“[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

December

13,

2010.

January 24, 2011.

The

notice

of

appeal

was

filed

on

Because Dodson 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

2