Curtis Lamont McCoy v. Director, Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6566
CURTIS LAMONT MCCOY,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00857-JRS)
Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Lamont McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Lamont McCoy seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
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 in a civil action in which the United States is not
a party are accorded 30 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 March
11, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on
April 13, 2015.1 Because McCoy failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,2
1 We assume that the date McCoy signed and dated 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, 276 (1988).
2 McCoy did not explicitly request additional time in which
to file his notice of appeal, nor did he request a reopening of
the appeal period. He dated his notice of appeal April 13, 2015,
which would make his notice untimely. The postmark on the envelope

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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.
DISMISSED
is dated April 16, 2015. The notice of appeal was not sworn or
notarized in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). “‘[A] bare
notice of appeal should not be construed as a motion for extension
of time, where no request for additional time is manifest.’”
Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 901 (4th Cir. 1989) (quoting
Shah v. Hutto, 722 F.2d 1167, 1168-69 (4th Cir. 1983) (en banc)).

-- 3 of 3 --