Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Nathan Luckett v. Leroy Cartledge, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Nathan Luckett's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed the petition as untimely. The Fourth Circuit also dismisses the appeal, finding that Luckett failed to file a timely notice of appeal within the required 30 days of the district court's order, and did not obtain an extension. As the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, the Fourth Circuit dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-06-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 16-6329

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Nathan Luckett's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed the petition as untimely. The Fourth Circuit also dismisses the appeal, finding that Luckett failed to file a timely notice of appeal within the required 30 days of the district court's order, and did not obtain an extension. As the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, the Fourth Circuit dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Nathan Luckett v. Leroy Cartledge, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Nathan Luckett's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed the petition as untimely. The Fourth Circuit also dismisses the appeal, finding that Luckett failed to file a timely notice of appeal within the required 30 days of the district court's order, and did not obtain an extension. As the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, the Fourth Circuit dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    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. 16-6329

    NATHAN LUCKETT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    LEROY CARTLEDGE,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville.
    Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
    (6:15-cv-02239-MGL)

    Submitted:

    June 23, 2016

    Decided:

    June 29, 2016

    Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Nathan Luckett, Appellant Pro Se.


    Donald John Zelenka, Senior
    Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney
    General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Nathan Luckett seeks to appeal the district courts order
    accepting the magistrate judges recommendation and dismissing as
    untimely his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2012) petition.

    We dismiss the

    appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was


    not timely filed.
    Parties are accorded 30 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
    January 19, 2016.
    2016. *

    The notice of appeal was filed on February 22,

    Because Luckett 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

    For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date


    appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
    have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
    the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
    (1988).

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like