Otis T. Madison v. Director of the Virginia Dept., No. 16-6831 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on October 21, 2016.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6831 OTIS T. MADISON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:15-cv-00422-HEH-RCY) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: September 8, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Otis T. Madison, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Otis T. Madison seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 May 6, 2016. The district court found on limited remand from this court that Madison handed his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing on June 10, 2016, and, thus, that the notice of appeal was not timely filed under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). We review this factual finding for clear error, see Ray v. Clements, 700 F.3d 993, 1012 (7th Cir. 2012), and we discern no such error. Thus, Madison filed the notice of appeal, beyond the 30-day appeal period. Because Madison 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 dispense with oral 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 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.
