Terry Wilmore v. Michael McCall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00408-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998662108]. Mailed to: Terry Wilmore. [11-6726]

Appeal: 11-6726

Document: 7

Date Filed: 08/24/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6726

TERRY MICHAEL WILMORE,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden,
Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:11-cv-00408-JFA)

Submitted:

August 17, 2011

Decided:

August 24, 2011

Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Michael Wilmore, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6726

Document: 7

Date Filed: 08/24/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Terry
court’s

order

Michael

Wilmore

adopting

the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the

the

district

magistrate

judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as
successive.

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 April 13, 2011.

The notice of appeal can be deemed filed, at

the earliest, on May 24, 2011. * Because Wilmore failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
oral

argument

because

the

facts

*

and

legal

We dispense with
contentions

are

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

Appeal: 11-6726

Document: 7

adequately

Date Filed: 08/24/2011

presented

in

the

Page: 3 of 3

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3