Robert LaRoche v. David Dunlap

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cv-00222-JMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999607294]. Mailed to: Robert LaRoche. [15-6611]

Appeal: 15-6611

Doc: 6

Filed: 06/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6611

ROBERT A. LAROCHE,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
DAVID DUNLAP, MCI Warden,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge.
(4:14-cv-00222-JMC)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert A. LaRoche, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6611

Doc: 6

Filed: 06/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Robert A. LaRoche 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 30 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 March
23, 2015.

The notice of appeal was filed on April 23, 2015, one

day late.

Because LaRoche 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