John Henry v. Warden, Perry Correctional

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying as moot Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999422123-2] Originating case number: 4:13-cv-01868-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999460072]. Mailed to: Henry. [14-7106]

Appeal: 14-7106

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7106

JOHN HENRY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(4:13-cv-01868-MGL)

Submitted:

October 16, 2014

Decided:

October 22, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Henry, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-7106

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John Henry seeks to appeal the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as barred by the
statute

of

limitations.

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 17, 2014.
2014. *

The notice of appeal was filed on July 21,

Because Henry failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

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

the

appeal

and

deny

certificate of appealability.

as

moot

Henry’s

motion

for

a

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,
276 (1988).

2

Appeal: 14-7106

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/22/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3