Lewis Welsh v. Warden Cartledge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:13-cv-00296-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999385653]. Mailed to: Welsh. [14-6327]

Appeal: 14-6327

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/30/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6327

LEWIS WELSH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
ALAN WILSON, Attorney General,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(4:13-cv-00296-MGL)

Submitted:

June 26, 2014

Decided:

June 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lewis Welsh, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6327

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/30/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lewis Welsh seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
granting summary judgment for Respondent on his 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 January 24, 2014.
26, 2014. *

The notice of appeal was filed on February

Because Welsh 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

*

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: 14-6327

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/30/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3