Eric March v. Warden Stevenson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-04633-JMC. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000349898]. Mailed to: Eric March. [17-6593]

Appeal: 17-6593

Doc: 15

Filed: 08/16/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6593

ERIC D. MARCH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN STEVENSON,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (5:15-cv-04633-JMC)

Submitted: August 9, 2018

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric D. March, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: August 16, 2018

Appeal: 17-6593

Doc: 15

Filed: 08/16/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Eric D. March seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment and adopting
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying 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 thirty 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 17, 2017. The notice
of appeal was filed on April 21, 2017. * Because March failed to file a timely notice of
appeal and the district court declined to extend 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

*

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, 270-71 (1988).
2