Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

433 F. App'x 159

Dodson v. Warden

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided June 1, 2011

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2011-06-01

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Bowles v. Russell

Decided 2011-06-01

¶1 Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

¶2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

¶3 Melvin Cornnell Dodson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely 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.

¶4 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

¶5 The district court’s order was entered on the docket on December 13, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on January 24, 2011. Because Dodson 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

¶6 DISMISSED.

/433/fappx/159 · .json · Public domain