Opinion

McCarthy v. Warden Tammy Brown

  • 425 F. App'x 248
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Apr 27, 2011
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Wilkinson, Gregory, Duncan
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.5%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6199

ANNETTE MICHELLE MCCARTHY,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN TAMMY BROWN,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior

District Judge. (7:10-cv-00300-jct-mfu)

Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 27, 2011

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Annette Michelle McCarthy, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson

Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Annette Michelle McCarthy seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely her 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 December 10, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on

February 7, 2011. * Because McCarthy 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

*

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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.

266, 276 (1988).

2

presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.