Michael Jackson-El v. RICHARD DOVEY, Warden; BRIAN E. FROSH, The Attorney General of the State of Maryland

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7059
MICHAEL JACKSON-EL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RICHARD DOVEY, Warden; BRIAN E. FROSH, The Attorney General of the State of
Maryland,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-03899-RDB)
Submitted: September 23, 2022 Decided: October 12, 2022
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Jackson-El, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Jackson-El seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We previously remanded this case to the district court for
the limited purpose of determining when Jackson-El filed his notice of appeal. Jackson-El
v. Dovey, 830 F. App’x 116, 116 (4th Cir. 2020). On remand, the district court found that
Jackson-El filed his notice of appeal after the appeal period expired. Because the district
court’s finding is not clearly erroneous, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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 dismissal order was entered on the docket on June 8, 2020.
Consequently, Jackson-El had until July 8, 2020, to note a timely appeal. See Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1)(A). On remand, the district court found that Jackson-El gave his notice of appeal
to prison officials for mailing on July 12, 2020, and thus it was deemed filed on that date.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Upon reviewing
the record, we are satisfied that the district court’s finding is not clearly erroneous. See
Ray v. Clements, 700 F.3d 993, 1012 (7th Cir. 2012) (reviewing for clear error district
court’s finding as to when inmate delivered document to prison officials for mailing); cf.
United States v. Cohen, 888 F.3d 667, 678 (4th Cir. 2018) (“As a general proposition, we
review a district court’s . . . factual findings for clear error.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Because Jackson-El filed his notice of appeal after the appeal period expired and he
did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. 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 --