Christopher Odom v. State of South Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-02713-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999367986]. Mailed to: Odom. [14-6169]

Appeal: 14-6169

Doc: 25

Filed: 06/03/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6169

CHRISTOPHER ODOM,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (3:11-cv-02713-RMG)

Submitted:

May 29, 2014

Decided:

June 3, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se. Albert Richard Pierce,
Jr., HOWSER, NEWMAN & BESLEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6169

Doc: 25

Filed: 06/03/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Christopher
court’s

order

A.

adopting

Odom
the

seeks

report

to

and

appeal

the

district

recommendation

of

the

magistrate judge, and dismissing Odom’s 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 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 26, 2012.
2014.

The notice of appeal was filed on January 13,

Because Odom failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

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

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

2