Floyd O. Hunt, Jr. v. RICK WHITE, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6457
FLOYD O. HUNT, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RICK WHITE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:21-cv-00152-JPJ-PMS)
Submitted: November 21, 2023 Decided: November 28, 2023
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Floyd O. Hunt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Floyd O. Hunt, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting his motion to
voluntarily dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his two motions for
reconsideration of that 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’s order granting Hunt’s motion to dismiss and dismissing his
§ 2254 petition was entered on May 13, 2021; the district court’s order denying Hunt’s first
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration was entered on February 3, 2023; and the
order denying Hunt’s second motion for reconsideration was entered on March 9, 2023.
Hunt’s notice of appeal was filed no earlier than April 20, 2023.* Because Hunt failed to
file a timely notice of appeal from these orders or to obtain an extension or reopening of
the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the postmark date appearing on the
envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date Hunt 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 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --