Clorey France v. State of North Carolina, No. 15-7346 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7346 CLOREY EUGENE FRANCE, Petitioner – Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00250-JAB-LPA) Submitted: January 26, 2016 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, February 3, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clorey Eugene France, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Clorey Eugene France seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 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 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 July 6, 2015. The notice of appeal, dated August 6, 2015, was filed on August 11, 2015. 1 Because France failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 2 We dispense with oral 1 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 While France filed a timely post-judgment motion, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), he failed to comply with the district (Continued) 2 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 court’s order to file a corrected Accordingly, the motion was stricken. 3 motion with a signature.
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.
