Filed: Apr. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8170 GREGORY T. WINDLEY, Petitioner – Appellant, v. AJ PADULA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (1:11-cv-02304-TMC) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory T. Windley, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8170 GREGORY T. WINDLEY, Petitioner – Appellant, v. AJ PADULA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (1:11-cv-02304-TMC) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory T. Windley, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8170
GREGORY T. WINDLEY,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
AJ PADULA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-02304-TMC)
Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory T. Windley, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown,
Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory T. Windley seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the
notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty 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 September 27, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on
December 21, 2012. Because Windley failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
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
2