Carnell McElroy v. Harold Clarke, No. 12-7326 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7326 CARNELL DION MCELROY, Petitioner Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Respondent Appellee, and GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00425-CMH-TCB) Submitted: October 15, 2012 Before KING and Circuit Judge. DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 23, 2012 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carnell Dion McElroy, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Carnell Dion McElroy seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.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. 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 June 17, 2012. 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on August 2, Because McElroy failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss denied. the appeal. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is We deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and 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. 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.