Tashon Sampson v. Warden Reynolds

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:14-cv-04206-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999753566]. Mailed to: T. Sampson. [15-7426]

Appeal: 15-7426

Doc: 6

Filed: 02/11/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7426

TASHON SAMPSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN REYNOLDS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(9:14-cv-04206-DCN)

Submitted:

January 21, 2016

Decided:

February 11, 2016

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tashon Sampson, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7426

Doc: 6

Filed: 02/11/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Tashon Sampson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing 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
July 23, 2015.
2015.

The notice of appeal was filed on September 2,

Because Sampson 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