Willie Gilmore v. Warden Robert Stevenson, Iii

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7598
WILLIE GILMORE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN ROBERT STEVENSON, III,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-04540-RMG)
Submitted: January 23, 2017 Decided: March 17, 2017
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Gilmore, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Willie Gilmore seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012). We
remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose
of determining whether Gilmore demonstrated excusable neglect or
good cause warranting an extension of the 30-day appeal period.
The case is now back before us upon a finding by the district
court that Gilmore failed to make this showing. We therefore
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 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 was entered on the docket on
August 13, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed, at the
earliest, on September 17, 2016.* Because Gilmore failed to file
* See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
a timely notice of appeal or 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

-- 3 of 3 --