Johnny Padgett v. State of South Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998725463-2]; Motion for other relief [998725459-2] as moot. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00155-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998792085]. Mailed to: Johnny Padgett. [11-7000]

Appeal: 11-7000

Document: 17

Date Filed: 02/21/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7000

JOHNNY T. PADGETT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (1:11-cv-00155-CMC)

Submitted:

February 16, 2012

Decided:

February 21, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny T. Padgett, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7000

Document: 17

Date Filed: 02/21/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Johnny T. Padgett seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing

Padgett’s

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 June 6, 2011.
2011. ∗

The notice of appeal was filed on July 29,

Because Padgett failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal.

We deny his pending motions for appointment

of counsel and fair review as moot.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

∗

Padgett is not a prisoner and therefore does not qualify
for the prisoner-filing rule set forth in Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266 (1988).
Regardless, Padgett’s executed his letter on
July 13, 2011, seven days after the filing deadline.

2

Appeal: 11-7000

Document: 17

Date Filed: 02/21/2012

Page: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3