Ricky Turner v. Director, VA Dept of Corr

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999435647-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999449839-2]. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00998-TSE-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999519561]. Mailed to: Appellant. [14-7317]

Appeal: 14-7317

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/29/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7317

RICKY LAMAR TURNER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00998-TSE-JFA)

Submitted:

January 21, 2015

Decided:

January 29, 2015

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Lamar Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7317

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/29/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ricky

Lamar

Turner

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order 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 December 6, 2013.

Turner filed an “Out of Time Petition for

Appeal,” at the earliest, on August 26, 2014. *

Although the

district court granted a reopening of the appeal period under
Rule

4(a)(6)(B)

and

construed

the

“Out

of

Time

Petition

for

Appeal” as a timely notice of appeal, we find that Turner is not
entitled to that relief.

The plain language of Rule 4(a)(6)

*

Turner dated this document August 26, 2014.
We presume
that this is the earliest date it could have been delivered to
prison officials for mailing to the court.
Fed. R. App. P.
4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

2

Appeal: 14-7317

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/29/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

requires a motion to reopen be filed “within 180 days after the
judgment or order is entered or within 14 days after the moving
party receives notice of the entry, whichever is earlier.”
R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B) (emphasis added).

Fed.

Because Turner’s “Out

of Time Petition for Appeal” was filed more than 180 days after
the

entry

of

the

district

court’s

order,

the

lacked authority to reopen the appeal period.

district

court

See Hensley v.

Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 651 F.2d 226, 228 (4th Cir. 1981)
(noting expiration of time limits in Rule 4 deprives the court
of jurisdiction).
Accordingly, we deny Turner’s motions for appointment
of

counsel

dispense

and

with

contentions

are

dismiss
oral

the

argument

adequately

appeal

as

because

presented

in

untimely
the
the

facts

filed.

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3