Roy Johnson, Jr. v. Warden Joseph McFadden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cv-04272-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999995015]. Mailed to: Roy Johnson, Jr. [16-6551]

Appeal: 16-6551

Doc: 5

Filed: 12/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6551

ROY JOHNSON, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN JOSEPH MCFADDEN,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge.
(4:14-cv-04272-RMG)

Submitted:

December 6, 2016

Decided:

December 29, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6551

Doc: 5

Filed: 12/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Roy Johnson, Jr., 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
December 1, 2015.

The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest,

on April 12, 2016.

Because Johnson failed to file a timely notice

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

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

2