Roger Parker v. Larry Cartledge

Filing

OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Originating case number: 8:16-cv-02790-PMD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. Mailed to: Roger Raynard Parker. [1000280011] [17-7565]

Appeal: 17-7565

Doc: 5

Filed: 04/23/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7565

ROGER RAYNARD PARKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LARRY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (8:16-cv-02790-PMD)

Submitted: April 19, 2018

Decided: April 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Raynard Parker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-7565

Doc: 5

Filed: 04/23/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Roger Raynard Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Parker’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2012) petition. Parties to a civil action 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). But the
district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party moves for an
extension of the appeal period within 30 days after expiration of the original appeal
period and demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause to warrant an extension. Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(5); see Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900–01 (4th Cir. 1989).
“[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 final judgment was entered on the docket on July 13, 2017.
The envelope containing Parker’s notice of appeal indicates that it was submitted to the
prison mailing system on August 15, 2017, after expiration of the 30-day appeal period
but within the excusable neglect period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). Because Parker’s
notice of appeal requested relief from any finding of untimeliness and offered an
explanation for the time of his filing, we construe it to contain a request for an extension
of time to file the notice of appeal. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited
purpose of allowing the district court to determine whether the time for filing a notice of
appeal should be extended under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A).

The record, as

supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
2