Robert Prince v. Harold Clarke ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7347
ROBERT LINWOOD PRINCE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00233-RAJ-LRL )
Submitted: April 2, 2020 Decided: April 15, 2020
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Linwood Prince, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert L. Prince seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Prince’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018)
petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was
not timely filed.
In civil cases, parties have 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 entered its final order on September 12, 2018. Prince delivered
his notice of appeal with the prison mail system on October 25, 2018, after the expiration
of the 30-day appeal period but within the excusable neglect period. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(c); see also Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988) (stating prison mailbox rule). We
remanded for the district court to determine whether Prince demonstrated excusable neglect
or good cause warranting an extension of the 30-day appeal period. The district court
concluded that he had not, so we dismiss the appeal as untimely. 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
2