The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
22-6978•Scott Randall Reich v. EDDIE M. BUFFALOE, JR., Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety
22-6978Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 20, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6978
SCOTT RANDALL REICH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
EDDIE M. BUFFALOE, JR., Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public
Safety,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00083-MR)
Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott Randall Reich, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Scott Randall Reich seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 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 November 10, 2021. Reich filed the notice of
appeal on August 18, 2022.* Because Reich 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 Reich 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.