Frank Green, Jr. v. Warden Stevenson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-00488-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999940754]. Mailed to: Frank Green. [16-6853]

Appeal: 16-6853

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6853

FRANK GREEN, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN STEVENSON,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (5:15-cv-00488-JFA)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6853

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Frank

Green,

Jr.,

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
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
district

are

court’s

accorded
final

30

days

judgment

or

after
order

the
to

entry

note

an

of

the

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 28, 2016.
2016. *

The notice of appeal was filed on June 13,

Because Green 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 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 276 (1988).

2

Appeal: 16-6853

Doc: 6

materials

before

Filed: 10/04/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3