Rodney Jones v. Lawrence Parsons, No. 13-7890 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7890 RODNEY EUGENE JONES, Petitioner Appellant, v. LAWRENCE PARSONS, Institution, Administrator, Lanesboro Correctional Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cv-00175-RJC) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Before FLOYD and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: July 28, 2014 Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Eugene Jones, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Rodney court s order Eugene denying Jones his seeks motion to for appeal the district reconsideration of the court s order denying Jones 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 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 May 17, 2013. 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on November 8, Because Jones 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. We also deny Jones second motion to reopen the appeal as moot. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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.