From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ross v. Ball

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Sep 4, 2013
539 F. App'x 153 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-6825

09-04-2013

GREGORY LYNN ROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL BALL, Respondent - Appellee.

Gregory Lynn Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld, Magistrate Judge. (1:12-cv-00292-LPA-LPA) Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Lynn Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Gregory Lynn Ross seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order dismissing 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.

Both parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the magistrate judge 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 magistrate judge entered judgment on February 27, 2013. Ross filed a motion for a certificate of appealability on May 7, 2013. Because Ross 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

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).
--------

DISMISSED


Summaries of

Ross v. Ball

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Sep 4, 2013
539 F. App'x 153 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

Ross v. Ball

Case Details

Full title:GREGORY LYNN ROSS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL BALL…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 4, 2013

Citations

539 F. App'x 153 (4th Cir. 2013)