Charles Gamble v. Warden of Lee Correctional Institution ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6220 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6220
CHARLES GAMBLE, a/k/a Charles Edward Gamble, Jr.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:20-cv-03399-TLW)
Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: June 27, 2023
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Gamble, Appellant Pro Se.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6220 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6220 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Charles Gamble seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Gamble’s
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s order. 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 order on November 7, 2022. Gamble filed the notice
of appeal on February 19, 2023. * Because Gamble failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of 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 Gamble could have delivered the notice to prison officials for
mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
3