Filiberto Campos v. Warden Shane Jackson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6596
FILIBERTO CAMPOS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN SHANE JACKSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (8:24-cv-03510-JD)
Submitted: December 18, 2025 Decided: December 23, 2025
Before NIEMEYER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Filiberto Campos, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Filiberto Campos seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Respondent
on Campos’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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 order on May 29, 2025, and the appeal period expired
on June 30, 2025. Campos filed the notice of appeal on July 16, 2025.* Because Campos
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 Campos 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 --