Marshall Locklear, Jr. v. State of North Carolina, No. 09-8232 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8232 MARSHALL LOCKLEAR, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ALEXANDRA MARINA HIGHTOWER; THEODIS BECK, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:07-cv-00682-RAE) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: August 31, 2010 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marshall Locklear, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III; Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marshall Locklear, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court s order petition. denying We relief dismiss the on his appeal 28 for U.S.C. lack of ยง 2254 (2006) 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 September 24, 2008. December 11, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on Because Locklear failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. appoint counsel. facts and legal We also deny Locklear s pending motion to We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately presented in the 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). 2 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
