Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Reginald Croft v. Anthony Padula, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    1) Reginald Croft appealed the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition and denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment. 2) The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Croft failed to file a timely notice of appeal within 30 days of the district court's final order as required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 3) Croft's notice of appeal was filed on January 28, 2013, more than 30 days after the district court entered its order dismissing his petition on December 13, 2012.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-04-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-6253

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Reginald Croft appealed the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition and denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment. 2) The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Croft failed to file a timely notice of appeal within 30 days of the district court's final order as required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 3) Croft's notice of appeal was filed on January 28, 2013, more than 30 days after the district court entered its order dismissing his petition on December 13, 2012.

    Copyright:

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

    Reginald Croft v. Anthony Padula, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Reginald Croft appealed the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition and denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment. 2) The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Croft failed to file a timely notice of appeal within 30 days of the district court's final order as required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 3) Croft's notice of appeal was filed on January 28, 2013, more than 30 days after the district court entered its order dismissing his petition on December 13, 2012.

    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. 13-6253

    REGINALD A. CROFT,
    Petitioner Appellant,
    v.
    ANTHONY J. PADULA,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Beaufort.
    J. Michelle Childs, District
    Judge. (9:11-cv-01813-JMC)

    Submitted:

    April 18, 2013

    Decided:

    April 23, 2013

    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Reginald A. Croft,
    Assistant
    Attorney
    Assistant Attorney
    Appellee.

    Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry,


    General,
    Donald
    John
    Zelenka,
    Senior
    General, Columbia, South Carolina, for

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Reginald A. Croft seeks to appeal the district courts
    orders adopting the magistrate judges recommendation to dismiss
    his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition and denying his motion to
    alter or amend the judgment.

    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 13, 2012.
    28, 2013. *

    The notice of appeal was filed on January

    Because Croft 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

    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).

    in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
    the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like