Lester Woodruff v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999267869-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999253470-2] Originating case number: 6:12-cv-00072-NKM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999337214]. Mailed to: Woodruff. [13-7944]

Appeal: 13-7944

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/16/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7944

LESTER O’NEIL WOODRUFF,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD
W.
Corrections,

CLARKE,

Director

Virginia

Department

of

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.
Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (6:12-cv-00072-NKM)

Submitted:

April 14, 2014

Decided:

April 16, 2014

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lester O’Neil Woodruff, Appellant Pro Se.
Rosemary Virginia
Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7944

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/16/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lester O’Neil Woodruff seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

petition.

denying

We

relief

dismiss

the

on

his

appeal

28
for

U.S.C.
lack

of

§ 2254

(2012)

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 October 23, 2013.
25, 2013. *

The notice of appeal was filed on November

Because Woodruff failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period,

we

deny

appealability,

Woodruff’s

deny

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

leave

to

motion

for

proceed

in

a

certificate

forma

of

pauperis,

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

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

Appeal: 13-7944

Doc: 10

materials

before

Filed: 04/16/2014

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3