Robert Young v. Joseph McFadden
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:15-cv-00090-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999949409]. Mailed to: appellant. [16-6804]
Appeal: 16-6804
Doc: 6
Filed: 10/18/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6804
ROBERT A. YOUNG,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH MCFADDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(9:15-cv-00090-TMC)
Submitted:
October 13, 2016
Decided:
October 18, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert A. Young, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6804
Doc: 6
Filed: 10/18/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Robert A. Young 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
January 19, 2016.
2016. *
The notice of appeal was filed on June 11,
Because Young 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
legal
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
*
adequately
presented
in
the
For purposes 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: 16-6804
Doc: 6
materials
before
Filed: 10/18/2016
this
court
Pg: 3 of 3
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?