Ikeisha Perry v. Catherine Kendall, No. 15-6027 (4th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6027 IKEISHA PERRY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CATHERINE KENDALL, for Leath Correctional, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:11-cv-00434-DCN) Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 28, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ikeisha Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ikeisha Perry seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. judge and 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 filed on October 14, 2011, and entered on the docket on October 17, 2011. appeal was filed on January 5, 2015. The notice of Because Perry failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of dispense with contentions the are appeal oral period, argument adequately we dismiss because presented in the the the facts appeal. We and legal materials 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.