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)
24-6203•Willie Young v. TONYA JAMES, Warden
24-6203Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 4, 2024
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6203
WILLIE YOUNG,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TONYA JAMES, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (6:22-cv-00428-CMC)
Submitted: May 30, 2024 Decided: June 4, 2024
Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Young, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Willie Young seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and dismissing as successive his 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 January 3, 2023, and the appeal period expired
on February 2, 2023. Young filed the notice of appeal on February 21, 2024.* Because
Young 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 Young 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.