Raymond Edmonds, Jr. v. Warden Cecilia Reynold

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999832063-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999797746-2]. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-01041-PMD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999953415]. Mailed to: Raymond Edmonds, Jr. [16-6558]

Appeal: 16-6558

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/24/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6558

RAYMOND EDMONDS, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN CECILIA REYNOLDS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:15-cv-01041-PMD)

Submitted:

September 22, 2016

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

NIEMEYER

October 24, 2016

and

AGEE,

Circuit

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6558

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/24/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Raymond Edmonds, Jr., 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
March 14, 2016.
2016. *

The notice of appeal was filed on April 14,

Because Edmonds failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
deny the motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave
to

proceed

dispense

in

with

forma
oral

pauperis
argument

and

dismiss

because

*

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).

2

Appeal: 16-6558

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 10/24/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3