Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Randolph v. Bodison, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Linart Randolph's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Randolph failed to file a timely notice of appeal within 30 days of the district court's December 10, 2010 order dismissing his petition as required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. His notice of appeal was not filed until January 12, 2011, which was after the 30-day deadline expired. As the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-05-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6074

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Linart Randolph's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Randolph failed to file a timely notice of appeal within 30 days of the district court's December 10, 2010 order dismissing his petition as required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. His notice of appeal was not filed until January 12, 2011, which was after the 30-day deadline expired. As the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views3 pages

    Randolph v. Bodison, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Linart Randolph's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Randolph failed to file a timely notice of appeal within 30 days of the district court's December 10, 2010 order dismissing his petition as required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. His notice of appeal was not filed until January 12, 2011, which was after the 30-day deadline expired. As the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-6074

    LINART RANDOLPH,
    Petitioner Appellant,
    v.
    MCKEITHER BODISON, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (3:10-cv-00162-RBH)

    Submitted:

    May 19, 2011

    Before TRAXLER,
    Judges.

    Chief

    Decided:

    Judge,

    and

    AGEE

    and

    May 24, 2011

    KEENAN,

    Circuit

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Linart Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy


    Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Linart Randolph seeks to appeal the district courts
    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 courts 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 courts order was entered on the docket


    on

    December

    10,

    January 12, 2011. *

    2011.

    The

    notice

    of

    appeal

    was

    filed

    on

    Because Randolph 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

    The envelope in which the notice of appeal was mailed


    indicates it was received by the prison mailroom on January 12,
    2011, and the notice is considered filed on that date. Fed. R.
    App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). The notice
    of appeal indicates Randolph signed it on January 11, 2011,
    which was also after the thirty day appeal period expired.

    presented in the materials before the court and argument would


    not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like