Warren Russell v. Warden Reynold

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:14-cv-04035-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000104272]. Mailed to: Warren Russell. [16-6694]

Appeal: 16-6694

Doc: 13

Filed: 06/21/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6694

WARREN RUSSELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN REYNOLDS,
Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Beaufort. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (9:14-cv-04035-JMC)

Submitted: June 12, 2017

Decided: June 21, 2017

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Russell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General,
Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6694

Doc: 13

Filed: 06/21/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Warren Russell seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and granting summary judgment for respondent on Russell’s 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 25, 2016. The
notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on April 27, 2016. * Because Russell 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

*

The district court found that Russell delivered his notice of appeal to prison
officials for mailing on April 27, 2016. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 276 (1988).

2