Monica Perkins v. Warden P. Adams

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6917
MONICA PERKINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN P. ADAMS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00168-JPB)
Submitted: June 28, 2022 Decided: July 19, 2022
Before MOTZ and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Monica Perkins, Appellant Pro Se. Maximillian Fitzsimmons Nogay, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Monica Perkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice her 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal
was not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice
of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final
judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 denying Perkins’ § 2241 action on September 9,
2020. Perkins filed a notice of appeal referencing this case on June 7, 2021.* Because
Perkins 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 Perkins 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).

-- 2 of 2 --