Robert Shrout v. Evelyn Seifert

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00022-JPB-JSK. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999588727]. Mailed to: Robert Shrout. [15-6383]

Appeal: 15-6383

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6383

ROBERT C. SHROUT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
EVELYN SEIFERT, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00022-JPB-JSK)

Submitted:

May 19, 2015

Decided: May 22, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert C. Shrout, Appellant Pro Se. Scott E. Johnson, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6383

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Robert C. Shrout seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief 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 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).
notice

of

appeal

requirement.”

in

a

civil

“[T]he timely filing of a

case

is

a

jurisdictional

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket on
August 7, 2014.
2015.

The notice of appeal was filed on March 9,

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1).

Because Shrout failed to

file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening

of

dispense

with

contentions

the

are

appeal

oral

period,

argument

adequately

we

dismiss

because

presented

in

the
the

the
facts

appeal.

We

and

legal

materials

before

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

2