Sherwood Adams v. Gregory Knowlin , 465 F. App'x 234 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7124
SHERWOOD A. ADAMS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
GREGORY KNOWLIN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-02195-CMC)
Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sherwood A. Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown,
Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sherwood A. Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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 July 13, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on August 17,
2011. * Because Adams failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal and deny Adams’s motion for sanctions. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
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 (1988).
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3